Is it wrong to get married?

[khlib]

Is it wrong to get married if gay marriage is illegal in your country (like joining a country club that won't allow African Americans)? Is it wrong for other reasons? What do you think about the National Marriage Boycott (http://www.nationalmarriageboycott.com/)?

[kashkin]

I don't think it is wrong as such. It is just that marriage has a history of being tied to property rights and keeping women as property. Also, I don't really believe one should need the state to recognise his/her relationship. Though, being married can give some benefits that aren't available to de facto couples.

[Fawkes]

It's neither wrong nor right. A part of me feels that the very act of getting married is a declaration of complicity with an oppressive institution, but I can't ignore the major legal/financial benefits that often drive people to do it. In other words, I think it behooves every revolutionary to work to undermine the institution of marriage while still respecting the fact that many people do it out of necessity. When you live under capitalism it's not possible to exist entirely outside of it, hence why we seek to change the system by confronting it directly rather than by "dropping out".

[Nuvem]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting married. Unless we're to be lifestylists and therefore commit political suicide, there's no reason to refuse to marry while same-sex partners can't marry. Refusing to marry as a straight couple does nothing to advance the struggle of same-sex, transgender, etc. couples. Rather, an active and energetic struggle has to be waged for LGBTQ rights through mass organizations. Cultural barriers have to be smashed, real pressure has to be put on the ruling class, and people have to be mobilized to action. Refusing to marry as a straight couple, meanwhile, is tantamount to silencing yourself in defense of the silenced.

As for the question of marriage being a bourgeois institution by its nature or being inherently unequal, don't listen to that schlock. Marriage existed thousands of years before the Bourgeoisie or bourgeois culture and originally was nothing more than a pairing off of mates for the sake of convenience in sharing out the duties of raising children and surviving in a hunter/gatherer society. Marriage, like many things, is a man-made cultural abstract which can be molded and re-molded. Marriage in bourgeois society is often for material gain, this is readily evident; bourgeois society, especially in the modern era, plays havoc with the institution of marriage and, in a way, it has lost its permanence and significance. That being said, marriage is a better, freer, and more diverse institution now than it ever was before. We are all free to choose who we wed, why, when, where, and in what fashion- we also have the legal right to end that marriage for any reason (thank you, "irreconcilable differences" legislation). Marriage under a properly administered socialist economy- that is, one in which class distinctions have been liquidated, significant income status differentiation has been eliminated, and work is available to all who desire it, the list of reasons to get married for material purposes (generally considered a bad basis for marriage in western society) diminishes considerably.

I know I'm marrying the woman I love because I love her, because she's a wonderful person and I can happily imagine spending the rest of my life with her while I work and fight for the kind of world I want to live in. We're both from poor families and have nothing to gain financially from the arrangement. Until I recently became employed she supported me by working a minimum wage job and soon I'll be supporting her and putting her through college; once that's said and done and she can find herself a good job, we'll switch places again and I'll finally get around to my schooling. Hopefully one day we can both be doing what we really want to do with our lives. That sort of relationship of mutual cooperation, trust and understanding, to me, can't be wrong.

I've had a few debates in this regard on Revleft especially, a lot of ultra-libertarians (and a not inconsiderable number of actual leftists) take offense to the very institution of marriage as some kind of property or ownership relation, or a measure taken in bourgeois society to survive the stresses and challenges of capitalism. On a purely emotional argument, I must posit that these people have never been in a genuine loving relationship; from a more logical standpoint, I must assert that this ignores entirely autonomy of will and morality. While there are undoubtedly many cases of mental or physical abuse, intimidation and coercion in monogamous relationships, the claim that they are inherently unequal and represent some kind of power hierarchy of one partner over the other implies that there can be no case in which the arrangement is a mutual one consented to by both partners and free of any abuse, coercion or other distortion of personal autonomy of will. This is, in my opinion, completely fallacious. While it may not be the norm in bourgeois society, I posit that two people can absolutely come together in a permanent institution of romantic relations completely consensually and in cooperation with one another with no hierarchy between the two or domination of one partner by the other. To say that this cannot be the case, to me, appears either wholly illogical or painfully cynical.

[DeBon]

Simple analogy
You have a home, but several people in the third-world don't have a nearly as nice home as yours if they even have one at all. Does this mean you shouldn't live in your home? No. Live in your home and enjoy it, but lend a hand or support those who don't.

[Fawkes]

Nuvem:

You're conflating long-term romantic relationships with marriage. In a post-capitalist society, you wanna be in a long-term monogamous relationship? fine. You wanna wear certain symbols to display your love for one another? go for it. You wanna have a party to celebrate your love? hell yeah. You even want to use the term "marriage" to describe your relationship? I don't care, sure. But if there's no property, where is there a need for the relationship to be sanctioned by some governing body?

I have nothing against monogamous relationships at all, love whoever you want. What I am against is an institution where the state or some other governing body dictates what types of relationships are acceptable and allocates those they deem to be acceptable certain privileges and recognition.

[eyedrop]

It isn't wrong, but I don't see what good it can come out of making a relationship harder to break up. That just leads to staying too long unhappy in a relationship.

Here I think you have about the same benefits and rights when living together for over 2 years as a married couple would have. Except some inheritance, but who has shit to inherit away these days.

[Nuvem]

Nuvem:

You're conflating long-term romantic relationships with marriage. In a post-capitalist society, you wanna be in a long-term monogamous relationship? fine. You wanna wear certain symbols to display your love for one another? go for it. You wanna have a party to celebrate your love? hell yeah. You even want to use the term "marriage" to describe your relationship? I don't care, sure. But if there's no property, where is there a need for the relationship to be sanctioned by some governing body?

I have nothing against monogamous relationships at all, love whoever you want. What I am against is an institution where the state or some other governing body dictates what types of relationships are acceptable and allocates those they deem to be acceptable certain privileges and recognition.


Does the conception of marriage not necessarily constitute a long-term romantic relationship, whether loving or not? Of course I understand that one can certainly exist without the other. As for "sanctioning" of certain types of romantic or sexual relationships and not others, this is something of a presupposition that a socialist society would grant special privilege or recognition to married couples, which naturally it should not. Obviously I wouldn't condone any such a thing. But to say that this is cause to not legally wed someone under capitalism is quite silly. As I said, marriage is a cultural abstraction that changes like any other.

I see socialism as the road to making marriage a thing of pure poetic beauty. Under socialism, people can choose to be together and formalize this relationship through whatever ceremony they may choose (or none at all) without legal consideration (that is, of course, excepting age differentiation in the case of protecting minors). Marriage can become what it has been ideally viewed as: the vowing of people to stay with each other and share the deepest intimacies of emotion, sexuality and the adventure of life with one another. What I protest to is the position of many on the "left" that marriage as a social relation should be done away with entirely. I find nothing wrong with a couple being legally recognized as married by some governing body, so long as there is no subsequent intervention whether in the form of granting privilege or denying the legitimacy of said marriage. Naturally, I plan to combat the very same tendency in bourgeois society, to the extent that it can be combated in bourgeois society. My point is merely that none of this is reason to not marry someone on the basis of real emotional attraction.

[eyedrop]

I see socialism as the road to making marriage a thing of pure poetic beauty. Under socialism, people can choose to be together and formalize this relationship through whatever ceremony they may choose (or none at all) without legal consideration (that is, of course, excepting age differentiation in the case of protecting minors).

Ehhhh? You can do this now... you just won't get the recognition for the state.


Marriage can become what it has been ideally viewed as: the vowing of people to stay with each other and share the deepest intimacies of emotion, sexuality and the adventure of life with one another. What I protest to is the position of many on the "left" that marriage as a social relation should be done away with entirely. I find nothing wrong with a couple being legally recognized as married by some governing body, so long as there is no subsequent intervention whether in the form of granting privilege or denying the legitimacy of said marriage. Naturally, I plan to combat the very same tendency in bourgeois society, to the extent that it can be combated in bourgeois society. My point is merely that none of this is reason to not marry someone on the basis of real emotional attraction.

So you basically want a governing body to have a large register, where they can tick you out as married. Do I smell a hopelessly romantic here?

[Fawkes]

As for "sanctioning" of certain types of romantic or sexual relationships and not others, this is something of a presupposition that a socialist society would grant special privilege or recognition to married couples, which naturally it should not.

I find nothing wrong with a couple being legally recognized as married by some governing body, so long as there is no subsequent intervention whether in the form of granting privilege or denying the legitimacy of said marriage.

What role would that legal recognition play if there are no benefits or privileges resulting from it? In other words, what would be the point of having a sanctioning body?


But to say that this is cause to not legally wed someone under capitalism is quite silly

I never said that:

In other words, I think it behooves every revolutionary to work to undermine the institution of marriage while still respecting the fact that many people do it out of necessity. When you live under capitalism it's not possible to exist entirely outside of it, hence why we seek to change the system by confronting it directly rather than by "dropping out".

[Nuvem]

Ehhhh? You can do this now... you just won't get the recognition for the state.



So you basically want a governing body to have a large register, where they can tick you out as married. Do I smell a hopelessly romantic here?

The first block you quote me in I say precisely because bourgeois society often causes people to enter the institution of marriage for completely different reasons. Yes, you can do it now; I'm doing it. However, in another relevant anecdote of my own life, my mother married my biological father utterly without any loving feelings towards him. She married him when she was 15 with her parents' consent so that she could escape an abusive household. After finding that she had entered another, she divorced him as soon as she was a legal adult and could support herself as well as my brother and I. This is precisely the sort of tendency that I would have eliminated, along with all other problems of capitalist society which cause people to marry out of poverty, desperation, to move up in social status, or to "get rich quick". It is possible for marriage to be as I describe above in bourgeois society, but it is less the rule and more the exception.

In response to the second, what exactly do you mean and how do you derive that from the quoted content? I would expect that a governing body of socialist character would take note of couples considering themselves to be married for census and statistical purposes or various other non-preferential reasons I can't quite rattle off in a list at 5 AM. As for being a hopeless romantic, I don't really see the relevance of that statement to the topic- or to someone who's happily engaged.

Edit: Not just couples as I said a few lines above, but also groups of whatever number choose to consider themselves married to one another.

[Nuvem]

What role would that legal recognition play if there are no benefits or privileges resulting from it? In other words, what would be the point of having a sanctioning body?


I never said that:

There is no sanctioning body here, merely a notice taken that people who consider themselves to be married exist. Read my last post.

I never said that you said that, I'm merely addressing it as the topic of this thread.

Also, as an edit, I would point out that neither Fawkes nor Eyedrop have really said anything in disagreement with me in this thread. It's been more to the effect of picking apart my posts and nothing really significant is being contributed as a result. Kinda feels like an unnecessary song and dance not conducive to any real discussion on the topic.

[eyedrop]

What I meant with the first block was that you can " people can choose to be together and formalize this relationship through whatever ceremony they may choose (or none at all) without legal consideration (that is, of course, excepting age differentiation in the case of protecting minors)." now, it's just when you want the state to recognize it it becomes a problem. Have a ceremony and call yourself married as much as you want.

I'm perfectly aware that there has (and is) large problems with marriage as it stands today.


If a governing body wants to make statistical data out of my 'couple ceremonies' it doesn't actually affect me one iota.

[Nuvem]

I feel obliged to repeat;



I would point out that neither Fawkes nor Eyedrop have really said anything in disagreement with me in this thread. It's been more to the effect of picking apart my posts and nothing really significant is being contributed as a result. Kinda feels like an unnecessary song and dance not conducive to any real discussion on the topic.

[eyedrop]

Also, as an edit, I would point out that neither Fawkes nor Eyedrop have really said anything in disagreement with me in this thread. It's been more to the effect of picking apart my posts and nothing really significant is being contributed as a result. Kinda feels like an unnecessary song and dance not conducive to any real discussion on the topic.
Well my thought in this thread has been that you want marriage to be a condition-less non-binding ceremony.

If you want that why wouldn't you actually have a condition-less non-binding 'marriage' ceremony, instead of taking a marriage as it is today with how hard it is to get separated and all that. There must be some cognitive dissonance here, and I attribute it to romantically viewing 'being married'.

I can off course understand actually getting a bourgeoisie marriage because of the financial benefits, but bar those a non state sanctioned 'marriage' should be better.

[tir1944]

In other words, I think it behooves every revolutionary to work to undermine the institution of marriage while still respecting the fact that many people do it out of necessity. When you live un der capitalism it's not possible to exist entirely outside of it, hence why we seek to change the system by confronting it directly rather than by "dropping out".
The marriage devloped through thosands of years of history...you don't "undermine marriage",it can only wither way when the underlying material conditions for its existance disappar.

[Nuvem]

Eyedrop:
All right...now you're pretty much just proving that you're picking apart my posts pointlessly looking to make something out of nothing. There's no cognitive dissonance involved here. Yes, there is a romantic component here; this is an emotionally involved topic, so not everything is distilled down to cold and calculating weighing of benefits.

I don't plan to have to worry about getting separated, that's the point of choosing to be with this particular woman for the rest of my life; I want a binding ceremony because it's something that my partner and I have chosen to do out of personal preference. When people are legally married and it's recognized by a state that doesn't make it a "bourgeois" marriage; it's people being married within bourgeois society. Financial benefits aren't a consideration and neither is the difficulty of separation(which really isn't that much when you're poor as hell, rent an apartment and have little to divide up should a separation occur). Basically, you're prying at my personal lifestyle choices and preference and trying to chip away at it with the conception that I'm "looking for the best deal" in terms of non-romantic benefits. Thing is, there's none of that here. And that's why after the first 4 posts in this thread, nothing has been said at all.

[Scarlet Fever]

Nuvem:

You're conflating long-term romantic relationships with marriage. In a post-capitalist society, you wanna be in a long-term monogamous relationship? fine. You wanna wear certain symbols to display your love for one another? go for it. You wanna have a party to celebrate your love? hell yeah. You even want to use the term "marriage" to describe your relationship? I don't care, sure. But if there's no property, where is there a need for the relationship to be sanctioned by some governing body?

I have nothing against monogamous relationships at all, love whoever you want. What I am against is an institution where the state or some other governing body dictates what types of relationships are acceptable and allocates those they deem to be acceptable certain privileges and recognition.

Exactly. For more on this, Nuvem et al, I recommend The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Engels.

[Nuvem]

I've read it. Did you read the remainder of the thread, comrade? I basically told him "yes, I agree with all of that". That is, except the conflation part.

[Scarlet Fever]

Yes, got it, just throwing it out as a relevant read.

[eyedrop]

Eyedrop:
All right...now you're pretty much just proving that you're picking apart my posts pointlessly looking to make something out of nothing. There's no cognitive dissonance involved here. Yes, there is a romantic component here; this is an emotionally involved topic, so not everything is distilled down to cold and calculating weighing of benefits.


I'm not trying to offend, I'm just trying to help you clarify your thoughts. I'm thinking more of a conversation, not a debate. Ie not trying to score points.

Think about why you want to have a 'real' marriage, instead of having a ceremony and calling yourself married.

If it's not for 'benefits' I can't see any reason except for wanting recognition either from the state, church or people.

[Lanky Wanker]

I personally just see getting married as pointless.

[Hexen]

Yes it's wrong getting married because it's another manifestation with property.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Is it wrong to get married if gay marriage is illegal in your country (like joining a country club that won't allow African Americans)? Is it wrong for other reasons? What do you think about the National Marriage Boycott (http://www.nationalmarriageboycott.com/)?


Isn't the goal of boycotting to cause some kind of harm to the people/institution you are against. Which I am guessing is the anti-gay marriage folk.

The way I see it, boycotting won't do anything because nobody really cares if you get married or not. They only seem to care if Gays get married. If you boycott it, it makes no difference. It may draw some attention towards the plight of gay people and their inability to marry. However I doubt many people will give a shit enough to change the law.

What I am saying is that boycotting marriage won't help gays get the right to marry. So it comes off as a useless action to me. Unless there is something here I am misunderstanding.

[Charlie Watt]

Marriage is a weird one for me. I'm kinda semi-engaged, but we have no intention of ever getting a civil partnership or actually get married, if and when the state decides that we have equal standing before the law. And that's precisely it. While my other half is not strictly an anarchist, neither of us recognise the authority the state erroneously thinks it wields over us. So any marriage we have will be an off the books, strictly religious affair. I don't need a piece of paper from some fuckin wanker in a suit, granting me permission to define my relationship in a certain way. If you wanna get married, do it.

As for a boycott, I don't see how it would do much good. Maybe a bit of publicity, but to be honest, in the US especially, this is an issue where the publicity seems to generate its self.

[Ocean Seal]

Is it wrong to get married if gay marriage is illegal in your country (like joining a country club that won't allow African Americans)? Is it wrong for other reasons? What do you think about the National Marriage Boycott (http://www.nationalmarriageboycott.com/)?
No, its not wrong to get married. In fact its economically convenient sometimes. Anyways communism isn't a lifestyle so no one here is going to accuse anyone of losing commie points for getting married. A national marriage boycott seems like a cool idea though, I would prefer some nationwide protests with riots sprinkled in.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

but the question is also the answer. is it REALLY wrong to get married?

i dont see why not

[X5N]

I don't think it's wrong. Only unnecessary and overrated.

[Game Girl]

I don't think it's WRONG. I just think it's pointless. My parents are not married and their leading a happy life together.

[ВАЛТЕР]

In some cultures marriage is a huge deal. I don't think it is wrong at all, if people want to get married then let them. If they want a ceremony then so be it.

Personally I LOVE going to weddings. LOTS of lamb and/or pork right off the spit.:drool: Not to mention the booze and pretty ladies that show up. :D

[Zealot]

I plan on getting married, I like the idea of commitment to each other.

Haters gonna hate.

Just because it's illegal for gay people doesn't mean we shouldn't marry, it means we should fight for their right of marriage. But don't tell me it's bourgeois while at the same time fighting for gay marriage. That's just hilarious.

[ClearlyChrist]

Who Cares? If You Want To Get Married, And Never Have Sex For The Rest Of Your Life, That's Your Business.:lol:

[kashkin]

In some cultures marriage is a huge deal. I don't think it is wrong at all, if people want to get married then let them. If they want a ceremony then so be it.

Personally I LOVE going to weddings. LOTS of lamb and/or pork right off the spit.:drool: Not to mention the booze and pretty ladies that show up. :D

Open bar, the best part of wedding receptions.