What's the deal with marriage?

[Skyhilist]

Alright so let me just start off by saying that I'm literally not advocating or condemning anything here, simply looking for questions to something that I, for some reason, had never bothered to think about, much less form opinions about.

So it seems most people on here are against marriage. I'm just wondering what the prevailing reasons are for taking such a stance. Again, I currently have no stance of my own, so I'm not looking for this to turn into one of those classic revleft threads with a bunch of pointless fighting.

Also, what are peoples thoughts about marrying someone not because you personally support marriage, but because you care about your significant other and they are saying that marriage would make them happy for whatever reason?

Thanks.

[Sinister Intents]

Alright so let me just start off by saying that I'm literally not advocating or condemning anything here, simply looking for questions to something that I, for some reason, had never bothered to think about, much less form opinions about.

So it seems most people on here are against marriage. I'm just wondering what the prevailing reasons are for taking such a stance. Again, I currently have no stance of my own, so I'm not looking for this to turn into one of those classic revleft threads with a bunch of pointless fighting.

Also, what are peoples thoughts about marrying someone not because you personally support marriage, but because you care about your significant other and they are saying that marriage would make them happy for whatever reason?

Thanks.

I was actually thinking about this same thing today. I'm against marriage, I see it as something oppressive and patriachal. The root of marriage comes down to the woman becoming the property of the man, and it still shares some of those traits today. The husband works and brings bread home while the wife raises the kids and does everything for the husband, that and something I notice about marriage and monogamous relationships is that something always seems to fuck up. I'm not feeling too well to elaborate or anything further, but I hope this kinda helps though I think its a shit post

[BIXX]

I mean, I'm just against marriage as a limiting bond. And if it isn't a limiting bond of some sort, then why have it?

Meaning, marriage would have no other point than something symbolic, but it wouldn't really mean anything, you know?

[Quail]

I reject the idea that a long term monogamous relationship should be considered the ideal. Marriage is as much an economic arrangement as a matter of love. On a personal level, I don't want to get married because it isn't for me, but on a political level I can't condone it. The benefits that come with being married in our current society should be available to people in all kinds of relationships, whether monogamous or polyamorous.

(Sorry for the shit response, a little tipsy now.)

[Skyhilist]

(Sorry for the shit response, a little tipsy now.)

Don't worry Quail, your drunk posts are better than my regular posts.

Thanks everyone who has contributed so far, I can see what you all are getting at.

[Queen Mab]

So it seems most people on here are against marriage. I'm just wondering what the prevailing reasons are for taking such a stance.

Marriage is a consequence of private property, i.e. the practice developed to secure the transfer of property between generations (inheritance). It also provides a unit for the socialisation of children in the absence of any communal mechanism. This is achieved by shackling the sexuality of the partners, especially the woman.


Also, what are peoples thoughts about marrying someone not because you personally support marriage, but because you care about your significant other and they are saying that marriage would make them happy for whatever reason?

That's a pretty stupid thing to do. Quite apart from what anyone thinks of it, marriage is a serious commitment. You have to commit to it yourself, not because you want to please another person. Otherwise it's all going to end in tears.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I have complicated feelings on this subject. My political views and my personal views clash strongly on this. Politically, I am ideally opposed to marriage. I think it is an obsolete concept that is inherently oppressive. My personal views at one point fit with that, but as I grew up and started to see the complexities in my emotions and those complex emotions interwove with someone else's complex emotions I realized that there are emotional complexities that my political views about the subject don't quite cover. So now I find myself waiting for this guy I fell in love with about two years ago to purpose. Is it something I can understand on a rational level? No. Can I reconcile it with my own world outlook? No. Does that change that those are my personal feeling and emotions? Fuck no.
Take it for what its worth, but while my political outlook is opposed to marriage, I recognize that there are emotional complexities that go into it that can't be accounted for simply though my political outlook. It is a much more complex subject than I can explain on a political or ideological level.

[Redistribute the Rep]

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[Skyhilist]

Ok so to some things up, the main reasons people here are against marriage are:

1) It stems from a sexist and bourgeois history.

2) It is unfair that unmarried people can't enjoy the same privileges as married people (especially with people who are polyamorous and aren't even allowed to get married), and marriage perpetuates that.

3) It reinforces the useless and socially constructed idea that long term, monogamous relationships are superior relationships, which can cause others who are polyamorous or not so much into long term monogamy to be looked down upon.

4) Besides providing unfair economic privilege, it serves no actual purpose except for some vague and subjective symbolic one that is also socially constructed without any real utility.

Am I pretty much on the mark here? If so, these sound like pretty good reasons to me, thanks everyone.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

There are many types of polyamory. There are married couples that are poly fidelis as well as other forms of poly.

[RogueWolf]

The original source of western marriage was a pagan celebration of Mars and Venus / Ares and Aphrodite. It was a fertility ritual for new couples. Ares being the ultimate image and representative of Man. Aphrodite being the symbol of female beautiful. As early Christianity moved into Rome they adopted the ritual as their own.

Nowadays its a government contract between couples for tax rights.

[Skyhilist]

There are many types of polyamory. There are married couples that are poly fidelis as well as other forms of poly.

Yes but in the west "poly fidelis" isn't a legal thing so polyamorous people who'd like to get married whether male or female are SOL - the point here is that marriage gives unfair preference to monogamous people.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Marriage will be an anachronism under communism, because it represents property relations that will have been abolished.

[Red Economist]

So it seems most people on here are against marriage. I'm just wondering what the prevailing reasons are for taking such a stance. Again, I currently have no stance of my own, so I'm not looking for this to turn into one of those classic revleft threads with a bunch of pointless fighting.

I am against marriage because it is a restriction of sexual freedom. To exist within a 'marriage' requires you to repress your sexuality and this leads to neurosis. (e.g. the "nice" guy who is so completely hopeless he can't ask the girl out because he's too sexually repressed and is obsessed with doing everything 'right' rather than wanting to be happy and just have a f*ck).

this is a position I've taken based on the fact I've had neurosis (depression, anxiety, etc) because I've repressed my sexuality, not because I've had sex. I'm a virgin, so I'm still exploring the subject.

(i.e. I was the utterly hopeless 'nice guy' and want to change that).



Also, what are peoples thoughts about marrying someone not because you personally support marriage, but because you care about your significant other and they are saying that marriage would make them happy for whatever reason?


There is a difference between 'marriage' and 'monogamy'. The difference is that marriage is a compulsive monogamy in which a person is expected (due to the need to allocate private property) to be in a relationship till 'death' do us part, etc. These restrictions on sexual behavior cause neuroses because sexuality is not a biological function for procreation, by a psychological one based on satisfaction of the sexual instincts by pleasure.

however, there is a difference between sleeping with everyone you meet (which is almost as neurotic as not sleeping with anyone or sleeping with only one person) and a healthy 'openness' to having sexual encounters with more than one partner. Sexual desire is spontaneous and doesn't 'fit in the box'. So if I had a partner who wanted me to get married, (whatever I might feel emotionally) I know that he/she will want to sleep with other people sometime in the future- so they are not simply denying my freedom, but denying theirs as well. it is often the case that when one partner gets involved with someone else- with a great deal of awkwardness the other partner will let them go out because they want them to be happy.

There was a guy I knew who- had he been bisexual- I would have conceivably spent a lifetime with as he made me that happy. he had ADHD, so I knew that if he and I went out, there would be others and it was best just to accept it rather than risk losing him. he was the person who (as a friend) introduced me to the idea of 'open relationships'.

Truth be told, I would have to sit down with my partner and talk it out and see if we can reach a healthy understanding; this is potentially a 'deal breaker' as I think in the long-run it will make BOTH of us unhappy- but I've never been in that situation before, so I can't be certain what I'd do. it really depends on the person. A firm 'ideological' position on this is going to be counter-productive to actually having a healthy relationship, as free love means that the emotions have to come first, not ideology or any fixed system of 'rules'.

[Devrim]

Marriage will be an anachronism under communism, because it represents property relations that will have been abolished.

Despite this I think that it will continue for some time.


I reject the idea that a long term monogamous relationship should be considered the ideal. Marriage is as much an economic arrangement as a matter of love. On a personal level, I don't want to get married because it isn't for me, but on a political level I can't condone it. The benefits that come with being married in our current society should be available to people in all kinds of relationships, whether monogamous or polyamorous.

I imagine that it could change over time. but I think for most people a "long term monogamous relationship" is the ideal.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

Devrim is right, something so culturually embedded as monogamous relationships will be done away with over a long period of time, not through policies.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I am married, but I am generally against it in principle (think it's an arcane institution that serves no purpose but to prop up traditions, stroke egos and turn a break-up into a legal battle).
However, my wife is a lover of all things traditional (christmas, easter, pancakes, blah) and has always seen herself marrying the person she loves and has kids with. I didn't / don't feel strongly enough about it to deny her so we went ahead with a simple, non-religious service with family, friends and a meal afterwards.
Wouldn't miss it if it was gone, happy to be married because it's what she wanted.

[Five Year Plan]

I'm a big fan of monogamy, and not such a big fan of marriage.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yes but in the west "poly fidelis" isn't a legal thing so polyamorous people who'd like to get married whether male or female are SOL - the point here is that marriage gives unfair preference to monogamous people.

That doesn't necessarily imply that marriage is inherently bad per se.

It's like if a light bulb is that painfully bright kind that hurts your eyes you don't take a baseball bat to the light fixtures (unless you're me, I'll take a baseball bat to anything I can smash) you replace it with a more gentle bulb so your eyes don't hurt but you still aren't in the dark unable to find the whiskey.

[bropasaran]

Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism:

X, N:

"Abolition not of the natural family but of the legal family founded on law and property. Religious and civil marriage to be replaced by free marriage. Adult men and women have the right to unite and separate as they please, nor has society the right to hinder their union or to force them to maintain it. With the abolition of the right of inheritance and the education of children assured by society, all the legal reasons for the irrevocability of marriage will disappear. The union of a man and a woman must be free, for a free choice is the indispensable condition for moral sincerity. In marriage, man and woman must enjoy absolute liberty. Neither violence nor passion nor rights surrendered in the past can justify an invasion by one of the liberty of another, and every such invasion shall be considered a crime."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism:

X, N:

"Abolition not of the natural family but of the legal family founded on law and property. Religious and civil marriage to be replaced by free marriage. Adult men and women have the right to unite and separate as they please, nor has society the right to hinder their union or to force them to maintain it. With the abolition of the right of inheritance and the education of children assured by society, all the legal reasons for the irrevocability of marriage will disappear. The union of a man and a woman must be free, for a free choice is the indispensable condition for moral sincerity. In marriage, man and woman must enjoy absolute liberty. Neither violence nor passion nor rights surrendered in the past can justify an invasion by one of the liberty of another, and every such invasion shall be considered a crime."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm
I would say I mostly agree...

[bropasaran]

Which part you wouldn't agree with? And why?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Which part you wouldn't agree with? And why?

I know this sounds kind of trivial, being just a little detail, but it seems kind of hetero-centric. I understand that it is a text from a different era but the language is kinda out of date in that sense. I feel like I'm kinda being a ***** for bringing it up, so if I am I'm sorry.

I do ,however, agree with the overall sentiment of the idea behind the quote.:thumbup:

[Left-Wing Nutjob]

The bourgeois concept of marriage cannot be separated from its history as a form of social oppression. Nor can it be separated, fundamentally, from the concept of private property rights.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah as an institution it should be done away with, but the whole "property rights" argument is a little anacronistic in most circumstances these days IMO, and it's a bit abstract... I mean what in our society isn't tied up with property and market relations to some extent?

I don't think a revolution would have to do much - or could do much - to "abolish" it, more like just eliminating the sorts of factors that either make people stay (unhappily) married because of economic reasons (not meaning tax-breaks, but you know, "my husband beats me, but I have no job and no where to go"). In other words, workers would try and make it so that families and couples aren't necissary to have a community or to make daily chores and expenses easier to handle.

In fact, capitalism has already abolished the more tradditional social reasons for marriage (more kids to be your help, a wife-worker at home to do manufacturing for market or whatnot). Sexism plays into this a little with the expectation that women "are born" to raise kids and think of others (husband and kids) before themselves, but it's not an economic imperitive like in pre-industrial times. Many couples do split houswork and so on, for example, so I think it's really the combination of privitizing social reproduction with sexism that tends to overburdon women specifically.

But marriage under capitalism does seemingly offer something to people and so I think arguing against it on a practical level is just kinda ideological grandstanding. Capitalism is alienating, dominated by market relations, and atomized. Marriage, and family for some, can offer a tiny bit of refuge potentially in: a real connection (i.e. loving marriage), relationships supposedly not based on market concerns, and a partnership in dealing with the atomization of capitalist life. There are alternatives of course, but unless you can build some kind of community around yourself (mostly people do this through family), capitalism is a cold and lonly place to grow old in.

That's the ideal set-up, but as much as people try and achieve some "whole-ness" in family life that doesn't exist in capitalism - the same pressure outside can make marriages or families living hells. Even short of that, the stresses and demands of capitalism also undermine this set up that the family system also idealizes and promotes.

So the way I see it, class liberation allows for greater induvidual control in life (not being a cog who must find work to live, only to live just to work) which allows people to associate on a mutual basis. People wouldn't stress if they haven't found "the one" because being 50 and unmarried wouldn't imply that your life is empty and you wouldn't have to worry as much about just growing older alone with no support if you get ill or whatnot.

[Multiaccounting]

Devrim is right, something so culturually embedded as monogamous relationships will be done away with over a long period of time, not through policies.

I have a feeling that it is already eroding away slowly, with same-sex marriage being legalised more and more. I think it's possible that in a few years people will be pushing to either abolish marriage altogether or legalise polygamous marriages.

[Slavic]

I have a feeling that it is already eroding away slowly, with same-sex marriage being legalised more and more. I think it's possible that in a few years people will be pushing to either abolish marriage altogether or legalise polygamous marriages.

Are you implying that same-sex couples are not monogamous?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Are you implying that same-sex couples are not monogamous?

It doesn't sound like that was the implication, I could be wrong though. It seems Revolution Rebel was commenting on the process of deconstructing the social structure of society little by little. I hope Revolution Rebel corrects me if I'm wrong.

[Celtic_0ne]

I think marriage is only really a financial bond its easier to stay above the flood of debt and i feel marriage will not be necessary under communism