Marrige is only for people with religion.

[4thInter]

This is due to this couple being atheist and not believing in a higher mind they can't get married.
Article here > http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/31/marriage-only-for-christians/

[Dictator]

I agree, marriage should be abolished, or at least take the govt completely out of it - just have a private ritual with no legal benefits

[ckaihatsu]

I agree, marriage should be abolished, or at least take the govt completely out of it - just have a private ritual with no legal benefits


This is anti-progressive, or reactionary -- if gays (LGBT-etc.) can get married and receive all of the legal benefits that go with conventional marriage, then so should any other social-minority-identity group, like atheists.

People who *want* to get married, for whatever personal reasons, wouldn't appreciate their desired institution being 'abolished' -- such would be the same as the persecution of religion.

And 'taking the government completely out of it' is like saying that *health care* should be taken out of government's hands -- again reactionary, since it's a social institution that (is supposed to) provide commonly needed benefits on an equitable basis.

Your line *sounds* like edgy faux-socialism, an attempt to jet past all existing bourgeois-oriented social practices and institutions, in the name of a revolutionary-progressive ethos.

But as soon as you mention 'government' that situates the social context as being within (existing) bourgeois society, so there's nothing post-capitalism about it.

[Perditious C]

I have to agree with ckaihatsu. While I, personally, don't believe in the institution of marriage, to bar someone from the practice thereof, for any reason, is persecution.

[GimmieFire]

In my opinion, to bar somebody from marriage just because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof is just wrong.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This is due to this couple being atheist and not believing in a higher mind they can't get married.
Article here > http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/31/marriage-only-for-christians/
Actually, it's one government official being an asshole.

[Left Voice]

Marriage does actually predate existing organised religions. Marriage also exists in societies that are essentially atheist (in the sense that they don't believe in a god).

Of course, there are a lot of good arguments for abolishing marriage as an institution. I would tend to agree that it is unnecessary and re-enforces inequality within relationships and other archaic practices. However, it is awfully reductionist and one-dimensional to see marriage as merely the domain of religion. It's a very first world, Christian view.

[ckaihatsu]

Marriage does actually predate existing organised religions. Marriage also exists in societies that are essentially atheist (in the sense that they don't believe in a god).

Of course, there are a lot of good arguments for abolishing marriage as an institution. I would tend to agree that it is unnecessary and re-enforces inequality within relationships and other archaic practices. However, it is awfully reductionist and one-dimensional to see marriage as merely the domain of religion. It's a very first world, Christian view.


We'd have to re-think the social / societal *meaning* of marriage, in a non-bourgeois context -- consider that today it's very much a bourgeois institution, and that it's also a kind of social status, often with one person of the pair seen as 'winning' the other, and thus establishing a power structure / hierarchy of their very own.

The pair establishes a 'household', which is a *non-productive* entity -- again playing into the system of societal symbolism, or 'fetish', that's endemic to bourgeois society.

[Sinister Intents]

Sure, people should get married on their own terms, make their own damned ritual, and tell people on their own terms that they are a couple if they're in a monogamous relationship and think that marrying is a good idea. I'm wholely against marriage in and of it's self when we're talking about traditional marriage. I like the pagan hand binding thing I read about a while ago, it sounds interesting. In essence if you wanna get married find your own thing to show people that your married and do your own ritual if you must.

[Црвена]

That is total bigotry. Marriage is a union between two people who love each other - that's it, be the two people religious or atheist, straight or gay, black or white, working class or middle class...whatever. No one has any right to tell anyone else whether they can marry or not, and it's terrible that in 2014 such small-minded people are employed by the court and that anyone even has this attitude.

[Sinister Intents]

Was that in response to me?

[Црвена]

Was that in response to me?

No, no, it was in response to the idea that only religious people can marry!

[Sinister Intents]

That is total bigotry. Marriage is a union between two people who love each other - that's it, be the two people religious or atheist, straight or gay, black or white, working class or middle class...whatever. No one has any right to tell anyone else whether they can marry or not, and it's terrible that in 2014 such small-minded people are employed by the court and that anyone even has this attitude.

I completely agree, but what of polyamorous marriage? Do you think a man or woman could marry as many parners as they wish? Those partners having marry as many as they wish? Creating an inter connecting web of (for lack of a better word right now) legal relations? Or shouldn't it all just be free association, and with those that enjoy monogamy being able to be monogamous and those being polyamorous equally so?


No, no, it was in response to the idea that only religious people can marry!

Alright haha, I got a bit confused lol

[Црвена]

I completely agree, but what of polyamorous marriage? Do you think a man or woman could marry as many parners as they wish? Those partners having marry as many as they wish? Creating an inter connecting web of (for lack of a better word right now) legal relations? Or shouldn't it all just be free association, and with those that enjoy monogamy being able to be monogamous and those being polyamorous equally so?

I think it should all be free association. To be honest, I don't really care as long as people have equal freedom in their relationships and no one is imposing their will upon anyone else, not just in a marriage but in society in general.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think there are also practical social reasons people tend to want to get married in capitalism the come from the alienation of this society and the practical atomization. Imagine dealing with sudden unemployment in your 50s without any other potential income. Imagine getting a horrible disease in your 70s if you are unmarried and have no family. Happens all the time and friends help, but it's rough.

This society produces loneliness and isolation and a life-partnership and capitalist family arrangement is the viable countermeasure promoted by the system.

Personally I have little doubt that romantic relationships will be much different, probably much more informal without the alienation and pressures of capitalism. Older societies suggest this... Even the greater economic independence for individuals in capitalism shows that people not tied to the land and who earn their own income are much more flexible in relationships. I've read that the word for lover and friend are the same in many pre-Christian European cultures.

So when communities are based on cooperation, not a bunch of isolated people thrown together because of wage and market considerations, when communities are helpful and cooperative, rather than competitive marketplaces, then marriage and even monogamy are sorta optional in a practical sense.

[Hagalaz]

We'd have to re-think the social / societal *meaning* of marriage, in a non-bourgeois context -- consider that today it's very much a bourgeois institution, and that it's also a kind of social status, often with one person of the pair seen as 'winning' the other, and thus establishing a power structure / hierarchy of their very own.

The pair establishes a 'household', which is a *non-productive* entity -- again playing into the system of societal symbolism, or 'fetish', that's endemic to bourgeois society.

Interesting viewpoint.
So do you believe the same about marriage across the ages? Across myriad cultures?

[ckaihatsu]

Interesting viewpoint.
So do you believe the same about marriage across the ages? Across myriad cultures?


Well, just consider that all of human history so far has been 'by default', and has not ever been fully socially conscious and rationally planned by the workers of the world.

It's understandable that people might see their own lifestyles and life-paths as being similar to that of animals -- and the stated and exhibited parallels to the natural world are rife throughout primitive cultures.

So marriage as an institution may currently be seen as 'natural', but we also know it serves the social function of inheritance of wealth, since the question of passing-on ownership has to be resolved somehow within the system of private property.

[Zoroaster]

Although I personally am an advocate of free love, if someone wants to get married, then so be it.

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't care about people getting married. I don't see myself ever doing this, but it's perfectly fine and there should be no restrictions in terms of sexual preferences, beliefs etc. There is, however, one thing, that somehow upsets me, and that I've noticed many times, even with women that are feminists and very progressive and questioning society blahblah, namely that in 95% of all the people I've seen getting married, SHE takes HIS last name. And don't you tell me this is a coincidence or that in all these cases, she found his name to sound better or anything. Should I ever be so drugged as to wanna get married, I'd never ever give up my last name, and this is sth I can say for sure.

[Zoroaster]

I don't care about people getting married. I don't see myself ever doing this, but it's perfectly fine and there should be no restrictions in terms of sexual preferences, beliefs etc. There is, however, one thing, that somehow upsets me, and that I've noticed many times, even with women that are feminists and very progressive and questioning society blahblah, namely that in 95% of all the people I've seen getting married, SHE takes HIS last name. And don't you tell me this is a coincidence or that in all these cases, she found his name to sound better or anything. Should I ever be so drugged as to wanna get married, I'd never ever give up my last name, and this is sth I can say for sure.

Agreed. If marriage should exist, then it should at least be modified in certain concepts.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't care about people getting married. I don't see myself ever doing this, but it's perfectly fine and there should be no restrictions in terms of sexual preferences, beliefs etc. There is, however, one thing, that somehow upsets me, and that I've noticed many times, even with women that are feminists and very progressive and questioning society blahblah, namely that in 95% of all the people I've seen getting married, SHE takes HIS last name. And don't you tell me this is a coincidence or that in all these cases, she found his name to sound better or anything. Should I ever be so drugged as to wanna get married, I'd never ever give up my last name, and this is sth I can say for sure.

True. I wish I had taken a photo of my parents' expression when I said that if I married my (female) partner, I would take her surname. Priceless. It's those little things that help you through a day.

[Rosa Partizan]

True. I wish I had taken a photo of my parents' expression when I said that if I married my (female) partner, I would take her surname. Priceless. It's those little things that help you through a day.

oh dude, it must've been hilarious :laugh: with the same cultural background as yourself, I know it's something you really can't talk about with your family. When I hinted at the probability that I wouldn't like to get married my father was like "jes' ti normalna? Kakvo ti je to zapadno sranje? Hoces ostati sama cijeli svoj zivot?" (Are you normal? What kind of western bullshit is this? Do you wanna be alone for the rest of your life?)

But I'm a bit surprised, I thought you were into guys only?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

oh dude, it must've been hilarious :laugh: with the same cultural background as yourself, I know it's something you really can't talk about with your family. When I hinted at the probability that I wouldn't like to get married my father was like "jes' ti normalna? Kakvo ti je to zapadno sranje? Hoces ostati sama cijeli svoj zivot?" (Are you normal? What kind of western bullshit is this? Do you wanna be alone for the rest of your life?)

But I'm a bit surprised, I thought you were into guys only?

I almost am. And the women I do end up attracted to are all serious tomboys.

[Rosa Partizan]

I almost am. And the women I do end up attracted to are all serious tomboys.

so we won't be ending up together, which is a big miss out for you, since I got a very rare, nice last name NOT ending with -ic.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

so we won't be ending up together, which is a big miss out for you, since I got a very rare, nice last name NOT ending with -ic.

I'm named after bread soaked in milk. Even "Guzonja" (Arseman) would be a step up.

[Hagalaz]

Well, just consider that all of human history so far has been 'by default', and has not ever been fully socially conscious and rationally planned by the workers of the world.

It's understandable that people might see their own lifestyles and life-paths as being similar to that of animals -- and the stated and exhibited parallels to the natural world are rife throughout primitive cultures.

So marriage as an institution may currently be seen as 'natural', but we also know it serves the social function of inheritance of wealth, since the question of passing-on ownership has to be resolved somehow within the system of private property.

Animals marry?
Frankly,from a anthropological view point (as well as historical) your view makes no sense.
Interesting that you think that all the billions of lives in the past have been lived in ignorance. And only now points to the truth of how humans should live.:unsure:

[ckaihatsu]

Animals marry?


Um....





Frankly,from a anthropological view point (as well as historical) your view makes no sense.


Which view is that?





Interesting that you think that all the billions of lives in the past have been lived in ignorance.


Hey, everyone's ignorant of *something* -- what is it about the institution of marriage that you think people should know about?





And only now points to the truth of how humans should live.:unsure:


Which would be what, exactly?