Marriage in Communism

[Engel]

Ok just a question, where do Communists as a whole stand on the issue of marriage? I personally am in favor of it. I know East Germany promoted marriage and motherhood during its existence, while also providing free day care services so that the mothers could work if they so chose.

Ideally, it provides stability for the next generation, the children are able to learn from both of the parents and not just one, and it is generally promotive of reproduction. Even with the religious element that is often associated with it, the institute as a whole seems like a good idea.

[Caj]

Marriage will still continue under communism if individuals wish to marry. In contrast to marriage as it has existed in all previous human societies, however, communist marriage will not have the connotation of the ownership of one human being by another.

By the way, if you want a good leftist critique of marriage, I'd recommend Emma Goldman's Marriage and Love.

[Zealot]

Dunno, I like the idea of commitment so I would vote for it

[Engel]

, communist marriage will not have the connotation of the ownership of one human being by another.

My view of marriage never included that to begin with to be honest. To me it has always been something that is a union of two people. Who ever you marry should be someone who is completely your equal and has your love, trust and respect. The idea of marriage as ownership of another human being seems so feudal and primitive to me. :cubaflag:

[kapitalyst]

I have to side with you, comrade Anarchy!. It is my rather libertarian view that marriage is not a government institution whatsoever... it's a social contract between two individuals. Any consenting adults, of any gender(s), have the right to conduct their personal relationship however they so choose.

[Bud Struggle]

We may or may not let gays marry.

It will depend on the particular soviet's vote on the subject.

[Susurrus]

In the Spanish Civil War they would have "revolutionary marriages" from which either party could withdraw at any time. An account I've heard of it was that the men kept leaving quickly after the marriage, so they began having the union president take the man aside after the ceremony and tell him that he should think hard about and have a good reason for dissolving the marriage, and if he came around pestering him without one, he'd receive a swift kick in the balls and be sent on his way.

[thefinalmarch]

We may or may not let gays marry.

It will depend on the particular soviet's vote on the subject.
This is one of those particular situations where ideally I'd be all "fuck democracy" and let LGBT people do whatever they want.

[MarxSchmarx]

Marriage will be abolished. Period.

Oh sure, if a few fanatics want to maintain it among themselves that's their freedom. But at that point it would have no more significance than Quinceneras, Australian Aboriginal dream paths, Shichigosan or Barmitzvahs, I couldn't care less apart from anthropological curiosity.

[Aleenik]

I don't like the idea of marriage now nor under a Communist society. Vive le free love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love)!

[Veovis]

If a couple (or a trio, or a quartet, etc.) decides to commit, then it should be their decision whether they choose to call it marriage or not. Most of the current legal ramifications of marriage, especially the ones to do with finance, will have no meaning in a socialist society.

[Savage]

The concept of the family in bourgeois society that reflects private propety relations will obviously be abolished in communism, so I guess it depends on what you define 'marriage' to be. Ultimately, communist society will not dictate your lifestlye choices.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I do like the idea of marriage and commitment... not in the way of a man dominating over a woman, however.

Personally, I don't think marriage should be abolished.

[OHumanista]

If a couple (or a trio, or a quartet, etc.) decides to commit, then it should be their decision whether they choose to call it marriage or not. Most of the current legal ramifications of marriage, especially the ones to do with finance, will have no meaning in a socialist society.

This.
I for one can't ever imagine myself having more than one partner, someone I love and dedicate my heart to. But of course people should do what they feel that its right for them, and marriage as a contract would be meaningless after socialism.
I don't care if I am married or anything just as long as I am living with the person( or persons) I love the way I want. :)

Sorry for the excess of romanticism, I am like that :D

[Magón]

I think if two people, or three people, or six people, want to be solely committed to each other, then they should be able to without any interference or ridicule from outside entities. What they choose to do, is their time and energy, not someone else's. If they choose to call it marriage, or not, is completely up to them.

So "marriage" might be abolished in one place, but not in the other, but they could completely look identical.

[Revolution starts with U]

OP: I thanked your post because of your wickred awesome avatar :thumbup:

[Yuppie Grinder]

We may or may not let gays marry.

It will depend on the particular soviet's vote on the subject.
People shouldn't be able to hold despotic power over how other peole live there lives based on voting. That's totally inhumane. Let people marry or not marry based on their own choice. Abolishing or enforcing traditional family structures is despotic.
Socialism is largely about cooperation. What is more cooperative then a loving union between people?

[RGacky3]

Its non of our buisiness what people decide to do in their relationships with one another.

But no one has to worry about the destruction of the traditional family by Marxists, Capitalism has done a fine job itself destroying the family unit.

[EvilRedGuy]

Fuck marriage. I won't get marriage i will be with whoever i want to be with(provided they want to be with you too) and fuck whoever i want to. Polygamy FTW. Multirelationships are more interesting. For people who don't live a boring life. Same can be said against straight people for not being Bisexual.

Although its up to yourself whether you want it (for the whole marriage feeling) whether you are gay or not. Religion has no power, nor political nor spiritual. Personally i think marriage will wither away as its weired disgusting, religious/pseudo-science bullshit.

[Smyg]

My view of marriage never included that to begin with to be honest. To me it has always been something that is a union of two people. Who ever you marry should be someone who is completely your equal and has your love, trust and respect. The idea of marriage as ownership of another human being seems so feudal and primitive to me. :cubaflag:

This is my exact opinion.

I'm a huge romantic. Sad eh?

[EvilRedGuy]

Not romantic at all, multirelatoinships are more romantic.

[aristos]

Marriage is a crutch, it should be kicked away, so people learn to walk.

This, however can never happen through any political process, but instead education. Once the old generations are displaced by those who were born and grew up in a communist society marriage will disappear all on its own.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

We may or may not let gays marry.

It will depend on the particular soviet's vote on the subject.
Any "soviet" which makes LGBT people a second class minority has no right to exist.

[Bud Struggle]

Any "soviet" which makes LGBT people a second class minority has no right to exist.

Who would make that determination? What can over ride the democratic voice of the people?

[#FF0000]

Who would make that determination? What can over ride the democratic voice of the people?

ask this guy

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jksu5DxMK60/TJay-uYFgII/AAAAAAAAEsQ/kKBghppi6-A/s1600/John+Brown+2.jpg

[RGacky3]

Who would make that determination? What can over ride the democratic voice of the people?

Who ever said socialism is about democratic power over EVERYTHING, its never been about that, juts extending democracy to the economy.

[Nox]

Might be worth mentioning that marriage is a product of religion.

[Bud Struggle]

Who ever said socialism is about democratic power over EVERYTHING, its never been about that, juts extending democracy to the economy.

Fine. But then who has control over things like abortion? My soviet could vot to disallow it, would there be a Big Brother that would force all Soviets to comply with a unified plan?

[RGacky3]

would there be a Big Brother that would force all Soviets to comply with a unified plan?

You mean a constitution?

[Bud Struggle]

You mean a constitution?

Sure, but you know a constitution is only as good as those that enforce it.

[Sputnik_1]

As far as i know marriage had never really existed as a purely intimate and personal matter. Reasons for people getting married and tradition it involved was different according to the culture, religion or just simply historical period people lived in. For example, for greeks it was perfectly normal to a 30 years old man to marry an 8 or so years old girl and it had some practical reasons. Of course there are hundreds of other examples I won't list here, but the point is, differently from the recent and past times, we are intelligent enough to understand what are the limits (and by limits i mean age limit) and let people live their relationships the way they want. So polygamy, gay marriage, free love, or just simply a "traditional" marriage should be all up to individuals to decide.
The only thing, i believe, the communist society should get rid of, is a marriage for economical or legal reasons, all the rest is a decision of two or more people loving each other. They should be free to decide how do they want to live their lives without any economical, religious or legal pressure upon them.

Oh, and I personally don't care if I'm ever gonna get married or less, I just want to be happy with someone i love and he/she/them love me back.

[RGacky3]

Sure, but you know a constitution is only as good as those that enforce it.

Ok ... Are you arguing against democracy here? If so then for what?

[#FF0000]

Ok ... Are you arguing against democracy here? If so then for what?

I dunno about him but it sounds like you're arguing for centralization

[Skooma Addict]

This.
I for one can't ever imagine myself having more than one partner, someone I love and dedicate my heart to. But of course people should do what they feel that its right for them, and marriage as a contract would be meaningless after socialism.
I don't care if I am married or anything just as long as I am living with the person( or persons) I love the way I want. :)

Sorry for the excess of romanticism, I am like that :D

You are probly gunna wanna work on that.

[aristos]

Fine. But then who has control over things like abortion? My soviet could vot to disallow it, would there be a Big Brother that would force all Soviets to comply with a unified plan?

Why would a Soviet disallow it. The default stance is pro-choice. Not aborting is an individual choice within that framework.

[jake williams]

I think that with marriage being two things - one, a sort of transhistorical phenomenon whereby people who are romantically committed to each other ceremonially recognize their relationship; and one, a historically and culturally specific form which this relationship takes - it's going to both continue and not continue. I think you're always going to have relatively monogamous, medium- or long-term heterosexual relationships for a lot of people, but they're going to having nothing in common with marriage as the particular legal form it takes in capitalist societies, which will be abolished with those societies (since it mostly consists of property relationships which will become irrelevant). We're not exactly going to have a lot of estates to worry about dividing up.


Its non of our buisiness what people decide to do in their relationships with one another.
I think one of the major (perhaps, apparently, temporary) ideological victories of feminism was to make the case that "what people decide to do in their relationships with one another" is, in fact, our business. The contrary has always been the argument in support of domestic violence. But unless you think gender relations in our society are either healthy or unchangeable, we should in fact be concerned with what goes on in private (gender happening significantly in private).

Do you think that what happens between two adults in private is ethically irrelevant, whatever its content? Or do you think we're just obligated not to do anything about it?


Sure, but you know a constitution is only as good as those that enforce it.
I don't doubt that serious divisions of opinion and interest will continue to exist in socialist societies. They just won't be anything like the divisions of opinion and interest that exist between classes.

In fact, they won't even be as bad as such divisions between capitalists. Divisions between different factions of the capitalist class create real problems for liberal democracies. Contests for control of the state create real problems. While even in classless societies you'll still have people who want or need different things and have different ideas about the management of collective resources, I don't think they'll be anything like on the scale of those same problems faced by capitalists, who even in the context of vicious capitalism more or less maintain liberal democracy. It will take work to maintain the neutrality of workers' states as it takes work to maintain the (bourgeois) neutrality of capitalist states; but it will take less work, and it will take even less work to manage such conflicts in classless societies.

At any rate, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If your point is that you don't trust workers to protect gay rights but you trust the bourgeoisie, I can't see what your argument is. The bourgeoisie regularly militates to make gay rights an issue as a way of dividing the working class, a motivation which doesn't exist for workers' states (not to say that conservative gender policies haven't been manipulated for other reasons). But if you're then arguing that constitutions which restrain democracy and protect personal liberties can be totally trusted to function in capitalist societies, but can't be so trusted in socialist societies, because constitutions are only as good as those who enforce them, I simply don't know what the logic of your argument is. Of course there's no abstract guarantee that gay rights (or whatever else) will be protected in socialist societies - they haven't always been protected in socialist societies - but the motives to undermine them are reduced, while the methods of struggle to advance them are expanded. Social progress takes work, but that's just life.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Marriage will still continue under communism if individuals wish to marry. In contrast to marriage as it has existed in all previous human societies, however, communist marriage will not have the connotation of the ownership of one human being by another.

This, I think the contract of marriage will become much egalitarian and gender relations and the dynamics will improve. I also think that other marriage contracts which don't fit into the nuclear family model such as homosexual marriage and polygamy will become legal as well. I sincerely hope the latter eventually becomes legal and soon for personal reasons.

[OHumanista]

You are probly gunna wanna work on that.

Pardon me but...what do you mean ?:confused: lol :D

[kapitalyst]

Same can be said against straight people for not being Bisexual.


Wait... what?! Are you implying that it's wrong to not be bisexual? :confused:

[hatzel]

Wait... what?! Are you implying that it's wrong to not be bisexual? :confused:

Not that it's wrong, just that it's boring...

[Aleenik]

Not that it's wrong, just that it's boring...You have twice as many potential partners. Doesn't sound that boring to me. It's all just personal opinion though.

[hatzel]

I'd say the issue is more that if you're forcing your own sexuality so as not to be "boring" (but probably more to do with wanting to be whatever is 'leftiest,' to be as 'progressive' - or perhaps merely 'edgy' - as possible), you've probably got to take a long hard look at yourself and why you're actually involved in any of this...

[Bud Struggle]

I don't doubt that serious divisions of opinion and interest will continue to exist in socialist societies. They just won't be anything like the divisions of opinion and interest that exist between classes.

In fact, they won't even be as bad as such divisions between capitalists. Divisions between different factions of the capitalist class create real problems for liberal democracies. Contests for control of the state create real problems. While even in classless societies you'll still have people who want or need different things and have different ideas about the management of collective resources, I don't think they'll be anything like on the scale of those same problems faced by capitalists, who even in the context of vicious capitalism more or less maintain liberal democracy. It will take work to maintain the neutrality of workers' states as it takes work to maintain the (bourgeois) neutrality of capitalist states; but it will take less work, and it will take even less work to manage such conflicts in classless societies.

At any rate, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If your point is that you don't trust workers to protect gay rights but you trust the bourgeoisie, I can't see what your argument is. The bourgeoisie regularly militates to make gay rights an issue as a way of dividing the working class, a motivation which doesn't exist for workers' states (not to say that conservative gender policies haven't been manipulated for other reasons). But if you're then arguing that constitutions which restrain democracy and protect personal liberties can be totally trusted to function in capitalist societies, but can't be so trusted in socialist societies, because constitutions are only as good as those who enforce them, I simply don't know what the logic of your argument is. Of course there's no abstract guarantee that gay rights (or whatever else) will be protected in socialist societies - they haven't always been protected in socialist societies - but the motives to undermine them are reduced, while the methods of struggle to advance them are expanded. Social progress takes work, but that's just life.

My point was a "for instance." What if for instance a certain segment of a Post Revolution society decides that maybe the ethic of Communism correct on economic issues but wrong on certain social issues. And what if they dcided to act on that ethic in their own communities. It's pretty obvious from the large number of restrictions and perma-bans that go on here at RevLeft that the Radical Left is not of one mind on a lot of such issues so why would you expect them to think the same after some economic Revolution?

People dislike gays, dislike abortions, favor all sorts of things which have no relationship to the the Proletariat owning the means of production.

My point is thinking that a Revolution that is economic in nature would or should bing on a cultrual readjustment in society is absurd.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Who would make that determination? What can over ride the democratic voice of the people?
If the "democratic voice of the people" is a call to oppress other people and make them second class citizens, then such a "soviet" would need to be overthrown in the name of socialism, because replicating oppressions based on pre-bourgeois modes of morality surely ain't socialism. Would you expect the LGBT minority in such a "soviet" to just sit back and meekly accept that they're not equal to heterosexuals in the eyes of the "soviet"?

[CommieTroll]

We may or may not let gays marry.

It will depend on the particular soviet's vote on the subject.

Why would we need to vote on something like that?
It would be a waste of time voting on the matter of letting someone express their sexuality, nobody has the right to dictate someone's expression of love or the desire to be with another person

[Bud Struggle]

Why would we need to vote on something like that?
It would be a waste of time voting on the matter of letting someone express their sexuality, nobody has the right to dictate someone's expression of love or the desire to be with another person

You want to take if for granted that people won't vote on something like that and not put any safeguards in place? Fine.

Let's see how that turns out.

[CommieTroll]

You want to take if for granted that people won't vote on something like that and not put any safeguards in place? Fine.

Let's see how that turns out.

How could I possibly take something like that for granted? I don't see any reason for voting on a subject of that nature, I if didn't know any better that's a reactionary viewpoint

[jake williams]

My point was a "for instance." What if for instance a certain segment of a Post Revolution society decides that maybe the ethic of Communism correct on economic issues but wrong on certain social issues. And what if they dcided to act on that ethic in their own communities. It's pretty obvious from the large number of restrictions and perma-bans that go on here at RevLeft that the Radical Left is not of one mind on a lot of such issues so why would you expect them to think the same after some economic Revolution?

People dislike gays, dislike abortions, favor all sorts of things which have no relationship to the the Proletariat owning the means of production.

My point is thinking that a Revolution that is economic in nature would or should bing on a cultrual readjustment in society is absurd.
I don't disagree with the concerns you raise, which are real. I think, however, that it's important to reiterate two points I've already made.

First, I think that socialism abolishes major barriers towards the achievement of, say, gender equality. You get rid of a certain block of people with a vested interest in maintaining reactionary gender politics and dividing workers (ie. the bourgeosie) and you open up space for democratic struggle. Since class struggle and gender struggle aren't in contradiction, but rather the opposite - since without fighting sexism within the working class, within the labour movement and so on we can't build sufficiently broad and powerful class movements - fighting for socialism almost necessarily requires substantially overcoming social backwardness, including sexism. Do you disagree?

Second, however, I don't think these problems automatically go away, even when we get to the point of overthrowing capitalism. I do believe that the necessity to fight against reactionaries and for justice continues in socialist societies, but is made easier and more possible. Do you disagree with this?

[kapitalyst]

Not that it's wrong, just that it's boring...

Fair enough... Guess I'm just an old bore! :lol:

[Robert]

I'm an old borer.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Might be worth mentioning that marriage is a product of religion.
yes because no atheists ever get married.

[Hexen]

Marriage would be abolished in a post-revolutionary society because it's a another manifestation of property which is a form of theft which is the antithesis of what socialism & communism actually is.

Marriage is like putting a fence around a person just like IP/Copyrights puts fences around ideas, Patents puts fences around innovation, and lastly Private Property puts a fence around land which is clearly theft and stealing from everyone else...Capitalism revolves around putting fences around everything for their own personal gain.

[Misanthrope]

I would like to ask, what is marriage without a state?

[hatzel]

I would like to ask, what is marriage without a state?

Probably about the same thing it was from time immemorial right up until about 25th May 1754 :) Or perhaps something else...

[efficiency]

Why would a Soviet disallow it. The default stance is pro-choice. Not aborting is an individual choice within that framework.

Because abortion is an inherently capitalist act in which one person acts as if another person (the fetus) is their own property and does whatever they want with it, even treating it like an object rather than treating it as an equal.

Murder is a similar act in which one person takes control over another person's life treating it as if their right to it was higher than the individual's, once again treating it as an object or personal property to dispose of as they wish. Murder is a form of usurpation just as abortion is, destroying equality.

Slavery falls into the same pattern. If there are no laws against these things then you may indeed have anarchy but not communism.

[EvilRedGuy]

I'd say the issue is more that if you're forcing your own sexuality so as not to be "boring" (but probably more to do with wanting to be whatever is 'leftiest,' to be as 'progressive' - or perhaps merely 'edgy' - as possible), you've probably got to take a long hard look at yourself and why you're actually involved in any of this...


You're boring. Period. :rolleyes:

Bisexuality is progressive. fuck you.


PS- Tyranny of the majority is fascism not democracy, fuck you twice.

Just like abortion everything will be Egalitarian - It means each persons ideas are equal to everyones, even if the majority are nazis all ideas are acceptable. Though in a communist society views would progress further.

[RGacky3]

Bisexuality is progressive. fuck you.


Really? Or is it just sexual orientation, its like saying liking chocolate ice cream is mroe progressive than liking strawberry, its stupid.

[efficiency]

Probably about the same thing it was from time immemorial right up until about 25th May 1754 :) Or perhaps something else...Prior to the evangelization of Holy Mother Russia there was no alignment between church and state. I think the alignment goes back to near 1000 years there. In other countries much earlier, wherever kings aligned themselves with the church, particularly Constantinople and Rome before that. Prior to all that there was much more variety and freedom with respect to it. The Revolution put an end to Holy Mother Russia's Church/State alignment.

Any state that has an interest in equality needs to consider family units, which makes marriage significant. A family of ten tends to live under one roof but needs a bigger accommodation, for instance. If parents then divorce and they wish to split up the need for accommodations change.

Another consideration is children. Children are not property of parents. They are people under guardianship, a guardianship which must sometimes be removed (when the child is unsafe, for instance). In absolute anarchy there is no guardianship whatsoever. Is there? Therefore children are neglected. In a communist democracy children can be protected through law so that parents can be expected to provide appropriate guardianship, therefore, marital entities and relationships are of interest. The people vote for such things, getting what they want as a whole.

It restores the communal aspect to communism by offering a democratic form of government.

Matrimony, if sacramental, is a glorious form of grace in which communism has no better expression as church. This is not something any state was ever able to regulate. States and people in them have wanted to impose it but they can't.

[hatzel]

You're boring. Period. :rolleyes:

My apologies...


Bisexuality is progressive. fuck you.But as you've surely noticed (because that's what I just said), I don't make lifestyle choices based on what is more 'progressive.' As thefinalmarch would tell us: "fuck leftist roleplay." So I couldn't really care less which sexuality is, supposedly, more 'progressive' (as if that made any sense whatsoever), and I won't be turning round one day saying "you know what I've decided that actually I'm going to start fancying blokes now because fuck capitalism!!!" or whatever it is you're talking about here. Oh, and something else: I wear boatshoes and collared shirts have what could be described as a 'sensible' haircut. Because that's how I like it. Come at me!


PS- Tyranny of the majority is fascism not democracy, fuck you twice.I don't actually have the faintest idea who this is directed at...presumably Bud...but then why is there the "fuck you twice," because the first "fuck you" was directed at my post, not his? And I think he's pretty happy with his wife anyway, so you might be out of luck there...


everything will be Egalitarian - It means each persons ideas are equal to everyones....unless you're not bisexual, I assume? Or how else are you reconciling the equality of everybody's ideas with the assertion that a particular sexuality is more preferable than others? :confused:

[Game Girl]

I'm okay either way. My parents never got married. After living together for a few years, the goverment basically gave them a "married" status.

My parents never really saw the point of marriage. Nearly 30 years later, they are still in love! :thumbup:

[thefinalmarch]

As thefinalmarch would tell us: "fuck leftist roleplay."
I had to thank this for the token reference to me.

[thefinalmarch]

PS- Tyranny of the majority is fascism not democracy, fuck you twice.
You clearly have little grasp of what fascism is then. I'm sure Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Franco's Spain were manifestations of the "tyranny of the majority" in the purest form, never mind that the majority of the society - the working class - had little to no voice in the running of society - just as in every hitherto existing bourgeois society. :rolleyes:

[Sputnik_1]

Because abortion is an inherently capitalist act in which one person acts as if another person (the fetus) is their own property and does whatever they want with it, even treating it like an object rather than treating it as an equal.

Oh, so you know exactly when a life starts? Cause you know, scientists still disagree about that.
Also, i think it's some kind of a moralist way to think of abortion. I'm definitely pro-choice, you don't know what are the circumstances in which a woman might decide to abort and it surely wouldn't be like going to a hairdresser. It's not an easy decision and I think that judging people so easily for doing it is kinda simplistic.

[Hexen]

Because abortion is an inherently capitalist act in which one person acts as if another person (the fetus) is their own property and does whatever they want with it, even treating it like an object rather than treating it as an equal.

Murder is a similar act in which one person takes control over another person's life treating it as if their right to it was higher than the individual's, once again treating it as an object or personal property to dispose of as they wish. Murder is a form of usurpation just as abortion is, destroying equality.

Slavery falls into the same pattern. If there are no laws against these things then you may indeed have anarchy but not communism.

I guess you rather want to overpopulate the Earth and your forgetting the fact that abortion is a form of birth control that decreases unwanted pregnancies (I think you have also forgotten that people have sex for pleasure not solely just for procreation) especially from rape victims and including life threatening ones like miscarriages and such.

Also it's a woman's choice she wants to do with her body not yours.

[Bud Struggle]

Also it's a woman's choice she wants to do with her body not yours.

Or a fetus has a life. Or it's the business of the community not the individual.

Each plan is equally "Commie."

It just depends on how you spin it.

[ComradeMan]

Marriage would be abolished in a post-revolutionary society because it's a another manifestation of property which is a form of theft which is the antithesis of what socialism & communism actually is.

Is that why most major communist leaders, even ultra-left ones, were married?

Stop with spouting slogans and bullshit you don't even seem to understand just so you can posture being an ultra-leftie.

Marriage is also about people making a legal committment to each other with responsibilities as well....

Now, if you are so against marriage- what's your position on say, civil (same-sex) partnerships? Would you abolish those too after the revolution?

[Skooma Addict]

You guys speak of "after the revolution" like you have some idea what society would look like. You don't. Although if we had to assume we should say marriage would still exist, since it has been a round for a very long time.

[jake williams]

Although if we had to assume we should say marriage would still exist, since it has been a round for a very long time.
The legal form of marriage has changed significantly even in the last few decades, in many countries moving from a situation where men have formal legal control of their wives to one where both partners are more or less legal equals. What this actually means in practice isn't totally clear, but the change is still massive.

It's just historical ignorance to claim that the way things are now, or seem to have been forever, is the way they will always be.

[Susurrus]

A fetus is not a person, nor is anything that has not become capable of conscious thought. Experience and learning makes us into people, we are not born or conceived with that power.

[Skooma Addict]

The legal form of marriage has changed significantly even in the last few decades, in many countries moving from a situation where men have formal legal control of their wives to one where both partners are more or less legal equals. What this actually means in practice isn't totally clear, but the change is still massive.

It's just historical ignorance to claim that the way things are now, or seem to have been forever, is the way they will always be.

Sure marriage will change over time. That's obvious. But there is no reason to believe it would just go away after some revolution. This is just hopeful thinking by some people.

[Bud Struggle]

A fetus is not a person, nor is anything that has not become capable of conscious thought. Experience and learning makes us into people, we are not born or conceived with that power.

After the Revolution--let's take a VOTE. Maybe you will be voted correct and maybe not.

[NGNM85]

A fetus is not a person,...

A fetus is not a static thing, like a liver, or a chair. This term refers to the gestational period between 11 weeks to birth, which usually takes place at around 40 weeks. A fetus at 12 weeks and a fetus at 40 weeks are drastically different.

To argue that a zygote is a human being is religious idiocy, but at some point we do acquire the sufficient biological conditions (The only relevant conditions.) of a human being. That's actually the point of the process. To assert that this occurs at the moment of birth is arbitrary, and irrational.

Second; we have to ask if human life has moral weight. There is a strong case that newborns aren’t ‘persons.’ Some, like Peter Singer, have argued that such infants, thus, have no moral weight, and that it is, therefore, perfectly permissible to ‘terminate’ such an infant, even more than a year after birth. This avoids the aforementioned logical gaps, but it also happens to be fucking insane.

[Susurrus]

A fetus is not a static thing, like a liver, or a chair. This term refers to the gestational period between 11 weeks to birth, which usually takes place at around 40 weeks. A fetus at 12 weeks and a fetus at 40 weeks are drastically different.

To argue that a zygote is a human being is religious idiocy, but at some point we do acquire the sufficient biological conditions (The only relevant conditions.) of a human being. That's actually the point of the process. To assert that this occurs at the moment of birth is arbitrary, and irrational.

Second; we have to ask if human life has moral weight. There is a strong case that newborns aren’t ‘persons.’ Some, like Peter Singer, have argued that such infants, thus, have no moral weight, and that it is, therefore, perfectly permissible to ‘terminate’ such an infant, even more than a year after birth. This avoids the aforementioned logical gaps, but it also happens to be fucking insane.

So I see you ignored the rest of my post, since you didn't even try to address it.

[NGNM85]

So I see you ignored the rest of my post, since you didn't even try to address it.

Incorrect. I covered all the bases; both the definition of what constitutes a ‘fetus’, and how it might be evaluated, and the moral weight of human beings and/or persons. (As well as human persons.)

[Bud Struggle]

In the end "Marriage in Communism" is going to be what the people say it's going to be:

and that's the old, and the religious and those that don't believe in divorce. Those that marry a lot and those that never have been married and romantic dreamers. Lots of those.

Have your Revolution. You guys are in for a SURPRISE!!!

[Susurrus]

Incorrect. I covered all the bases; both the definition of what constitutes a ‘fetus’, and how it might be evaluated, and the moral weight of human beings and/or persons. (As well as human persons.)

Yes, but that's not replying to a post. Those aren't counter-arguments, they're just statements.

[NGNM85]

Yes, but that's not replying to a post. Those aren't counter-arguments, they're just statements.

You’re just being intentionally difficult. You’re also being a hypocrite.

You are free to contest any of my assertions, most of which, incidentally, were empirical facts, if you desire to do so. I have no objection to elaborating. It just didn't seem necessary.

[Bud Struggle]

You’re just being intentionally difficult. You’re also being a hypocrite.

You are free to contest any of my assertions, most of which, incidentally, were empirical facts, if you desire to do so. I have no objection to elaborating. It just didn't seem necessary.

Cat fight.

[Game Girl]

Oh for the love of...

Scientifically speaking, a fetus is not a human untill a functioning brain has developed. Untill then, a fetus is technically a parasite.

[pastradamus]

Getting married is a personal commitment.If a particular couple wish to marry in a church or in a registry office it should be of their free choosing, regardless of Communist or Capitalist society.

[communard71]

Marriage isn't evil just because it started as a property rights issue. Like everything else, it can and has changed a great deal. As a religious institution, it should be considered outdated. However, the idea of solidarity between two people is actually beautiful. It's a micro-example of the solidarity of all people and as the smallest representation of that loyalty, it is admirable. In a communist society, marriage, like nearly everything else, will be protected as a choice. The current problem with marriage is that it is drowning in it's capitalist surroundings, thus, it is the smallest example of a unit for competition against others. In the end, we must consider what has been shown to be most natural for humans. Having many partners is fun and may have a very specific place in the life cycle of most people, but I really think monogomy does too. Whatever the answer is, and I'm not sure there is one, I would say the right to marry would be left in the hands of the interested parties, and we as leftists should allow as much latitude as possible.

[NGNM85]

Oh for the love of...

Scientifically speaking, a fetus is not a human untill a functioning brain has developed. Untill then, a fetus is technically a parasite.

I agree. This is sometimes referred to as the Neurological definition of human life. It also makes the most sense. However; again, this means that the fetus achieves human status before birth. Therefore; a fetus, at such an advanced stage of gestation, has rights.

[Bud Struggle]

I agree. This is sometimes referred to as the Neurological definition of human life. It also makes the most sense. However; again, this means that the fetus achieves human status before birth. Therefore; a fetus, at such an advanced stage of gestation, has rights.

The problem is that while this is a wokable definition--it is as arbitrary as any other definition. The beginning of life is, was and always will be totally subjective.

[hatzel]

The problem is that while this is a wokable definition--it is as arbitrary as any other definition. The beginning of life is, was and always will be totally subjective.

Life begins at 40, as they say :)

...though I wouldn't quite take it that far...

EDIT: oh yeah, I'm pretty happy with the 'life starts when it's half-way out' idea, by the way. But as Bud has said, this is arbitrary, totally subjective, there's obviously no monumental change in the nature of the (pre-)life once it gets a bit of fresh air on its crown or whatever else.

[Goblin]

Marriage is pointless these days. like 50% of them end in divorce...

[hatzel]

Marriage is pointless these days. like 50% of them end in divorce...

Of course this may be cyclic. Marriage is pointless because 50% end in divorce. 50% end in divorce because marriage is pointless. People marry foolishly and don't really care about it so marriage is pointless. People marry foolishly and don't really care about it so 50% end in divorce. Various features of contemporary society are not conductive to happy marriages so 50% end in divorce. Various features of contemporary society are not conductive to happy marriages so marriage is pointless. I dunno. Somebody figure out what I'm actually saying here, because I don't necessarily know...

[Agent Equality]

You know honestly, I am fully in favor of keeping marriage. Now the religious and financial currents need to go but the bond between two people through love and cooperation.... That should never be eliminated.

I know there's a lot of hipsters here who want to have multi-relationships with 50 different people because "no one can tell them who they can have relationships with" or whatever and because they want to be cool.

I, however, almost pity these people. Usually its emotionally scarred people that advocate this kind of thing or people who haven't ever actually found love. How good do you think your relationships will be if you cannot devote your time and effort and attention to one only? What do you think the quality of these relationships will be? More than that, how the hell are you going to even manage your time with all these relationships? I find it hard just to keep my attention on texting 2 people at once let alone 5+.

All I see when I see people talking about this is one big massive orgy and that's it(I'm gonna get bashed for this i know it lol) Now people can make that kind of choice if they want, but in my opinion its a horrible choice to make, especially if they've never known what its like to love another person and be in harmony with them etc.

All of this stems from me being in love with this girl who I hope to one day marry in say 5-10 years from now. That's the thing about love...You can completely disregard it and ignore it when you haven't felt it, but once you've felt it, you don't want anything else and cannot stop thinking about it.

Lol honestly, (like honest to a non-existant God) if I had to choose between my politics and my love, I'd choose love any day. Call me a traitor or whatever but its true. I'd abandon my ideas and politics to settle down, start a family, Get a house, live the "family life" (although I'd certainly prefer being able to keep my politics and perhaps instill them into her. That would be +2 :D ). I'm just simply stating I would do that, so strong are my feelings and dedication for this girl (let the harassing begin!!!)

tl;dr marriage = yes. why? love = most awesome thing in this world evar. It makes me crazy

[EvilRedGuy]

You know honestly, I am fully in favor of keeping marriage. Now the religious and financial currents need to go but the bond between two people through love and cooperation.... That should never be eliminated.

I know there's a lot of hipsters here who want to have multi-relationships with 50 different people because "no one can tell them who they can have relationships with" or whatever and because they want to be cool.

I, however, almost pity these people. Usually its emotionally scarred people that advocate this kind of thing or people who haven't ever actually found love. How good do you think your relationships will be if you cannot devote your time and effort and attention to one only? What do you think the quality of these relationships will be? More than that, how the hell are you going to even manage your time with all these relationships? I find it hard just to keep my attention on texting 2 people at once let alone 5+.

All I see when I see people talking about this is one big massive orgy and that's it(I'm gonna get bashed for this i know it lol) Now people can make that kind of choice if they want, but in my opinion its a horrible choice to make, especially if they've never known what its like to love another person and be in harmony with them etc.

All of this stems from me being in love with this girl who I hope to one day marry in say 5-10 years from now. That's the thing about love...You can completely disregard it and ignore it when you haven't felt it, but once you've felt it, you don't want anything else and cannot stop thinking about it.

Lol honestly, (like honest to a non-existant God) if I had to choose between my politics and my love, I'd choose love any day. Call me a traitor or whatever but its true. I'd abandon my ideas and politics to settle down, start a family, Get a house, live the "family life" (although I'd certainly prefer being able to keep my politics and perhaps instill them into her. That would be +2 :D ). I'm just simply stating I would do that, so strong are my feelings and dedication for this girl (let the harassing begin!!!)

tl;dr marriage = yes. why? love = most awesome thing in this world evar. It makes me crazy

Jump off a cliff and die. Then maybe you won't be so crazy.

Pseudo-socialist.

[hatzel]

Jump off a cliff and die. Then maybe you won't be so crazy.

Pseudo-socialist.

You've only recently been infracted for trolling/flaming/posting a load of pointless crap, but for some reason you still continue to do so. Why?

[Bud Struggle]

Marriage is pointless these days. like 50% of them end in divorce...

Yea. I've been married 27 years. It is the BEST thing that ever happened to me.

So I like it.

(Opinions may vary as to their particular situation. :))

[Robert]

Jump off a cliff and die.

Better idea: find a forum that doesn't make you so mean-spirited.

[Bud Struggle]

Better idea: find a forum that doesn't make you so mean-spirited.

:thumbup:

[Per Levy]

Jump off a cliff and die. Then maybe you won't be so crazy.

Pseudo-socialist.

really? someone pretty much just told you how much he loves another person and that he would like to keep marriage in a communist society(wich i do too, but i also want that every other option is possible, just the way everyone likes it best), and you tell him to jump from a cliff? whats wrong with you? also, you very well can be socialist/communist if you like the idea of marriage, just as you very well can be a socialist/communist if you dont like the idea.

[Rafiq]

Sure marriage will change over time. That's obvious. But there is no reason to believe it would just go away after some revolution. This is just hopeful thinking by some people.

Perhaps not overnight, but eventually.

To start, I imagine marriage will be tossed away legally, so things like getting married wouldn't be "State-Official", they'd just be two people deciding to live with each other forever without having sex with anyone else (What a dumb Idea!)

[EvilRedGuy]

You've only recently been infracted for trolling/flaming/posting a load of pointless crap, but for some reason you still continue to do so. Why?


Because i want to be a free human. Nobody should force me to marry or to stick with one individual only, i am a egalitarian so people should decide for themself whether they want to or not, and insulting people isn't gonna do more but alienate you from that group of people, so don't whine if you get assaulted by anti-monogamy freedom fighters ;). Anything other than that and you'll have a huge number of people armed with their teeth only ready to blow the fuck out of you.

TL;DR: IF you're not for a egalitarian society you're not a communist but a reactionary.

[hatzel]

Because i want to be a free human. Nobody should force me to marry or to stick with one individual only, i am a egalitarian so people should decide for themself whether they want to or not


people can make that kind of choice if they want

So remind us why you're calling for other users to kill themselves?

[ComradeMan]

Because i want to be a free human. Nobody should force me to marry or to stick with one individual only,.
I wasn't aware anyone was forcing you? Are they? Who are they?

i am a egalitarian so people should decide for themself whether they want to or not,
For the most part they do.

...by anti-monogamy freedom fighters ;).
If you like polygamy...err... you could go and live in Saudi Arabia? ;)

Anything other than that and you'll have a huge number of people armed with their teeth only ready to blow the fuck out of you.
Web warrior!!! LOL!!!!

TL;DR: IF you're not for a egalitarian society you're not a communist but a reactionary.
If you don't want to be an egalitarian we'll blow the fuck out of you? Is that what you are saying....?

Lol..... noob.

[Robert]

Nobody should force me to marry

Okay guys, he's right.

Let's abandon our plans to force EvilRedGuy to marry.

[ComradeMan]

Okay guys, he's right.

Let's abandon our plans to force EvilRedGuy to marry.

Damn.... I was going to organise the catering too. :lol:

[hatzel]

Oh no! Sally will be so disappointed, she was really looking forward to marrying ERG...:(

[Revolution starts with U]

There's actually in interesting theory amongst anthropologists that bipeda motion (walking on two legs for all you noobs out there) is a product of the development of monogomous (?) sexual relations.
Im not a big fan of it, but it goes something like (forgive me if I mischaracterize it):
Woman or man stays home with the kids, other woman or man goes out (we can assume the men were hunters because of humans now, but it would just be an assumption) to get food. The most effective way to get it back is to carry it, on two legs so that your arms are free.

Thats like a really short synopsis and misses many of the major points. But, take from it what you will.

[NGNM85]

The problem is that while this is a wokable definition--it is as arbitrary as any other definition. The beginning of life is, was and always will be totally subjective.

While there is a degree of subjectivity, it isn't entirely subjective. Our present understanding of fetal neurological development is sufficient to pare it down to a fairly narrow window.

[hatzel]

But, take from it what you will.

I'll take approximately nothing from it, if you don't mind. Don't see how the situation is different from any other with a territorial 'camp' and foraging...people...providing for the rest of the tribe.

[Revolution starts with U]

That was my problem with it too :D
Nevertheless, it is a pretty popular hypothesis. And I probably grossly mischaracterized it.