Marriage - abolish it now!

[apathy maybe]

Commitment should not be forced on people.
All the advantages are available from a de facto relationship.
It is easier to separate from a de facto relationship.

Any arguments for marriage should be put forward here. I’ll knock ‘em down.



edit: can this be moved to OI? That was where I meant to post it.

[Fidelbrand]

Commitment should not be forced on people, but people should be free to make commitments as they wish.

[Urban Rubble]

Commitment should not be forced on people.

When is commitment forced on anyone (except perhaps in arranged marriages, and that is a whole different issue) ? Why do you think to people agreeing to be faithful is in any way forced ?



All the advantages are available from a de facto relationship.

Well, no, they aren't, that is the point of the institution of marriage. You gain many benefits by being married, legally speaking. I agree that in terms of the relationship two unmarried people can have the exact same thing married people do, but in our society, marriage brings benefits.


It is easier to separate from a de facto relationship.

Why commit if you plan on being seperated ? You're missing the point of marriage. The point of marriage is not to have a nice little ceremony and get a ring and then in a few years if it doesn't work out you can go your seperate ways. Marriage if meant to be forever, so yes, of course it is harder to seperate from one, that's the very point.



I think that the term marriage can be very subjective. If this were a more anarchistic world, I think the concept of marriage would be more along the lines of something to show you are committed, for life, to the person you are with, which is partly the reason for it now. In current society, it makes sense to get married because of the benefits married couples get, but it is also a symbol of your commitment, which I think is more important. If society were arranged so that nobody gets special priviledges for being married, then I think that me and my girl would simply make a commitment, have a small ceremony, and then we would be "married" (commited), however, in the society we live in, I will get officially married, for the benefits.

In the end, it all comes down to the commitment. If you and your partner want to be together forever, I think it is important to express that and do something to show it. I guess I'm in basic agreement with you, I think that marriage if basically an invention of our society, however, I think it is very important to establish some sort of commitment to the person you love.


Sorry, that was totally incoherent, I just can't seem to articulate what I'm trying to say. Basically, I love my girl and will eventually commit to her for life, in this society we'll do it with a marriage license and a wedding, in an anarchistic society we would do it with a verbal agreement and a ceremony.

[apathy maybe]

In Australia at least (I can't speak for other countries), de facto relationships are recognised as equal for financial matters to "real" marriages. There are no other (that I can think of), advantages to be married.

As to commitment, you can commit just as easily to someone by a private ceremony (just the two of you) as you can by a big wedding. Only trouble is, if (for whatever reason) you want to separate, it is a lot harder (divorce). I know of couples that have stayed together for years (and haven't separated yet). But they didn't marry.

Forever should not be forced on someone. Forcing someone to stay with someone they don't love is not good for all the parties involved (including children). This is why divorce was made legal.

[Fidelbrand]

Divorce made legal is for the sake of individual freedom upon a bad marriage for precautionary's sake, but using it as a point to diminish the meaning of a marriage is not too sound.

If divorce is more complicated then a outside-marriage separation, then the 2 bears this consequence because they have the faith before to get married, and they knew about the consequence about divroce.

Forever should not be forced, yes.
But people have the right to get married (whether they fuck it all up or made it through sweetly to the end),
and
you have the right to not to marry but stay together with your honey in you 2's own way.

Fair enough...

[apathy maybe]

Sure they have the "right" to marry, but they don't need to.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 10 2004, 01:55 PM
Sure they have the "right" to marry, but they don't need to.
Apathy_Maybe,

Sure it should be left to them to decide whether they "want to" , "need to". Consenting adults should be respected for their choice of decisions, you may have a good intention & viewpoint, but sure they can figure out for themselves.

Love can afterall be something about "gestures", some thinks a piece of paper (legally marrying someone) does the job, some thinks the courage and commitment in marriage is adorable, some thinks that not getting married can also be a stamp of showing courage & commitment, ..... we choose.

[Guerrilla22]

I personally don't agree with the conceot of marriage, as it is a Christian concept, however, I believe thst thode who want to be married should be allowed to and that includes gays!

[Urban Rubble]

As to commitment, you can commit just as easily to someone by a private ceremony (just the two of you) as you can by a big wedding.

I agree, and I already stated that. The only reason I would have a "big" wedding is so I could have a nice party.


Forever should not be forced on someone. Forcing someone to stay with someone they don't love is not good for all the parties involved (including children). This is why divorce was made legal.

Again, how is anyone forced into anything ? They choose to get married and the can choose to get divorced ? Why do you insist on saying "forced" ?

Also, staying with someone you don't love is no worse than breaking the family apart.

[Krogher]

Marriage isn't just a Christian institution. If this were the case then people from India, Mongolia, China and so on would never have married 1000 years ago. People have always desired each other, and marriage was created as a public decleration of this desire and commitment. However I, being a Christian, believe that God created it. But, even in cultures which do not believe in my God marriage exists. I think that marriage is a beautiful thing which modern society has tainted.
~Michael

[Capitalist Imperial]

Ceremonies that are voluntary in the firstplace should not be banned, there is no point to it.

You commies want to abolish everything, don't you?

[Louis Pio]

And you want to invade everything.
People are different and get different kicks :D

Now back to the topic, if people feel the need to marry they should be absolutely free to do so. The problem is actually more the other way around. People living in relationships who don't want to marry get big problems legally. Especially considering inheritance, kids and so on. At least that's how it is in most of the world. In my oppinion people living in relationships should get the same oppotunities. Whether they are 2 guys, 2 women or a man and a woman.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I have to agree with apathy on this one.

Marriage is silly.

And I don't think that many people marry for the financial benefits involving inheritance and tax breaks. Besides, if people were taxed 100% and inheritances were abolished, that would make that particular 'advantage' of marriage obsolete.

But for today's circumstances, the governemnt is still wrong for granting benefits to legally wed families. All families deserve tax breaks, not only legally married ones.

[DarkAngel]

Marriage should not be forced on people. But people should be able to make the decision of whether to marry or not...its a choice, or atleast should be considered as...

[apathy maybe]

It must be different in the rest of the world. But as far as I know, in Australia there is no difference for things like inheritance etc for people who are married, and people living in de facto relationships (unless you're gay). There is thus no reason to keep marriage around.

Originally marriage was created for finical reasons. Someone had to pay for the wife and kids (this was back when women didn’t work). Today (at least in Australia) there are no worries about this.

There is thus, no reason to continue to keep marriage around, it is thus an extra that takes up resources, it is thus not needed.

If there is a couple, there is nothing stopping that couple from having a wonderful party, loving each other, pledging to stay together forever and ever. And all the rest of it, but they don’t need marriage to do it.

[V.I.Lenin]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 10 2004, 11:58 PM


There is thus, no reason to continue to keep marriage around, it is thus an extra that takes up resources, it is thus not needed.

If there is a couple, there is nothing stopping that couple from having a wonderful party, loving each other, pledging to stay together forever and ever
Perhaps parenting is no longer necessary as well,yes,thats it,simply let the woman give birth and leave it to fend for itself,then again,what need is there for human life any longer? sure,thats what needs to be done,outlaw human experience,simply remove the frontal portion of everyones brain and thus create a world of mindless zombies!

I dont know exactly what kind of drugs you all are on but its a fact that its damaged your brains!

Simply let a couple love one another,pledging to stay together forever and ever - Sure,its all lies anyway,marriage was put into place for this exact reason - cause human beings are liars! They babble all kinds of nonsense,much like I witness in the posts at this thread,in reality a person cannot trust anyone - None!

Mothers either abort or else abandon their own children,while the smallest of mother birds will starve herself to death in order to feed her young,which goes to prove that intelligence isnt determined by brain size!

Children are disrespectful,uncaring and for the most part not worth the effort that decent parents put into trying to make them sound human beings.Husbands and wives are equally unfaithful,and for a price bother will betray brother.

Its only natural that a couple will fall in and out of love,marriage assures that when one spouse falls out of love,that when they do fall back into love - it will be with the same person,and if not then a price will be paid.

There are no free rides in life,one way or another a price will be paid,and everytime you think yourself clever by taking advantage of another you in fact are betraying yourself,for only those which despise themselves find it easy to despise others,moreover,one who lashes out at others is merely attacking his own vileness which he has projected outwardly onto others.

So go ahead with your great liberation by which you wish to turn all order upside down,make the world of others as chaotic and confused as your own,only be sure to carry enough arsenic for you and your converts,for no doubt when people are at last emancipated and thus delivered into this horrible state of mental oblivion they will no doubt quickly desire to leap into the final abyss and be done with it all.

[Guerrilla22]

marriage is such a petty thing to abolish, it would be better to set your sights a little higher: religion and social class should be abolished.

[V.I.Lenin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:42 AM
marriage is such a petty thing to abolish, it would be better to set your sights a little higher: religion and social class should be abolished.
well said comrade ... well said indeed! ... it seems that far too many confuse ultra-liberalism for socialism ... again,well said.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 11 2004, 04:58 AM
Originally marriage was created for finical reasons. Someone had to pay for the wife and kids (this was back when women didn’t work).
When was that exactly?

[CubanFox]

Why abolish a voluntary union?

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 09:38 AM
Why abolish a voluntary union?
Because this idiot thinks he's cool because he's saying something that others aren't going to agree with.

[redstar2000]

Marriage: why we should abolish it now!

As a legal contract enforcible at law, I don't think it's at all practical to abolish marriage under capitalism.

There's too much money at stake...especially for the upper classes.

Sensible working class people, wishing to avoid the "lawyer tax" on their intimate relationships, will avoid marriage, of course.

In communist society, people will enter into and dissolve intimate relationships freely...and others will have little interest and no say in the matter at all.

That's the basics; now on to the dubious...


If you and your partner want to be together forever, I think it is important to express that and do something to show it.

It seems to me that the "desire" to be together "forever" is a social construct...something we are taught to "want" and even "expect" from an early age.

If we stand back and look at human behavior in a more objective fashion, we cannot help but notice that our desires change with the passage of time.

We may well have a terrific relationship with another person for a while, but then our eyes turn elsewhere.

Humans like stability and continuity...but we also like variety.

Of course, people are different -- for some, a lifetime together is too short; for others, two days is a day too long.

But I think it is, in a way, "wrong" to make promises that we have no way of knowing whether or not we can keep. We are not the same people at 30 or 40 or 50 that we were when we were 20. How then can we, at any age, make a "firm promise" for the person that we will later become?

And from the dubious into the realm of the totally weird...


Perhaps parenting is no longer necessary as well, yes, that's it, simply let the woman give birth and leave it to fend for itself, then again, what need is there for human life any longer? Sure, that's what needs to be done, outlaw human experience, simply remove the frontal portion of everyone's brain and thus create a world of mindless zombies!

As this hysterical over-reaction demonstrates, we are not without mindless zombies already.

Whether children are raised in a caring environment or not has almost nothing to do with the matter of marriage.

The abolition of marriage as a legal and public contract is unlikely to "end human life".


I don't know exactly what kind of drugs you all are on but it's a fact that it's damaged your brains!

Whereas you were presumably born with your impaired mental functions.

That's a tough break!


Simply let a couple love one another, pledging to stay together forever and ever - Sure, it's all lies. Anyway, marriage was put into place for this exact reason - cause human beings are liars! They babble all kinds of nonsense, much like I witness in the posts at this thread, in reality a person cannot trust anyone - None!

Don't have many friends, do you?

Certainly in class societies it is prudent to limit the exercise of "trust" -- though it will certainly take a few generations, I expect attitudes will be different in classless societies. People will become more "trustworthy".


Mothers either abort or else abandon their own children, while the smallest of mother birds will starve herself to death in order to feed her young, which goes to prove that intelligence isn't determined by brain size!

Agreed...not even the dumbest bird would write what you have written.


Children are disrespectful, uncaring and for the most part not worth the effort that decent parents put into trying to make them sound human beings.

So if that's your view...why argue against abortion or abandonment?


Husbands and wives are equally unfaithful, and for a price brother will betray brother.

Humans really suck!


...one who lashes out at others is merely attacking his own vileness which he has projected outwardly onto others.

I think you should ponder the meaning of this sentence at some length.


So go ahead with your great liberation by which you wish to turn all order upside down, make the world of others as chaotic and confused as your own, only be sure to carry enough arsenic for you and your converts, for no doubt when people are at last emancipated and thus delivered into this horrible state of mental oblivion they will no doubt quickly desire to leap into the final abyss and be done with it all.

Or at least done with your post...which feels like climbing up and out of an abyss.

Almost..."liberating".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[V.I.Lenin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 07:18 AM




As this hysterical over-reaction demonstrates, we are not without mindless zombies already.

Whether children are raised in a caring environment or not has almost nothing to do with the matter of marriage.

The abolition of marriage as a legal and public contract is unlikely to "end human life".



Whereas you were presumably born with your impaired mental functions.

That's a tough break!



Don't have many friends, do you?

Certainly in class societies it is prudent to limit the exercise of "trust" -- though it will certainly take a few generations, I expect attitudes will be different in classless societies. People will become more "trustworthy".



Agreed...not even the dumbest bird would write what you have written.



So if that's your view...why argue against abortion or abandonment?



Humans really suck!



I think you should ponder the meaning of this sentence at some length.



Or at least done with your post...which feels like climbing up and out of an abyss.

Almost..."liberating".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Take care lest others see through your own petty mentality and recognize you for what you are.

By all means attack me at every opportunity in that this merely exposes your owm inferiority.

Any psychologist worth their salt knows all to well that one is prone to attack what they fear most,and its evident that you do fear me and rightly so in that I possess the capacity to make you fall on your pompous behind,both you and I know this to be true,I ll at least give you that much credit,but in the final analysis we both likewise know that you ll a charlatan and a fraud.

I see no point in continuing this post,we both know that Ive said enough - point made!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 05:42 AM
marriage is such a petty thing to abolish, it would be better to set your sights a little higher: religion and social class should be abolished.
I have to say that I am by no means religious, but who are you to dictate what people do and don't believe about divinity, dieties, preordainment, and the purpose of life?

"Banning religion" seems tantamount to thought control.

Ah, communism, its not just for despots anymore!!!

[Louis Pio]

Banning religion" seems tantamount to thought control.

Abolishing is not the same as banning. Actually a ban would have the opposite effect. People's need for religion is created by conditions. Change the conditions and religion can slowly grow away except from a few nutters, most likely that horrible breed of christians called born again christians

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:00 PM

Abolishing is not the same as banning. Actually a ban would have the opposite effect. People's need for religion is created by conditions. Change the conditions and religion can slowly grow away except from a few nutters, most likely that horrible breed of christians called born again christians
I agree that born-again Christians are a little loopy, but then again I never saw them strap a load of dynamite to themselves and walk into a crowded market full of innocent people before pushing the red button.

[Louis Pio]

Well if they got pushed enough they would am pretty sure. Right now they ain't, muslim fanatism is created by the conditions they live under. The thing is that it has only really grown in the last 30 years. The purges of the more left tendency had a big role to play in that. Whether they were purged by US friends, enemies or we are talking about populist leftists removed by the USA. Especially in Iran that played a big role in bringing Khomeini to power.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:12 PM
Well if they got pushed enough they would am pretty sure. Right now they ain't, muslim fanatism is created by the conditions they live under. The thing is that it has only really grown in the last 30 years. The purges of the more left tendency had a big role to play in that. Whether they were purged by US friends, enemies or we are talking about populist leftists removed by the USA. Especially in Iran that played a big role in bringing Khomeini to power.
You're making excuses for mass murderers of innocent people.

[Louis Pio]

No not excuses.
But I don't use the patethic notion of blaiming it on culture or religion. If one has any honest wish to stop things like this you need to know what motivates people.
Arrogant imperialism is certainly not helping the situation.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2004, 02:28 PM
You're making excuses for mass murderers of innocent people.
Good try, but no one is "making excuses" for anyone -- Teis is simply shedding some light on why Muslim fanatics act the way they do. It's as if you believe there's "no reason" for terrorism when, in reality, there are many reasons that should be addressed, but aren't. In your previous posts, you seem to be an advocate of addressing these issues, but in all seriousness, nothing is being done about it despite bullshit promises to the contrary.

And, oh, although you don't see born-again Christians pressing the "red button" in a market of innocent people, remember that Christians were doing the same thing for 1700 years that Muslims are doing now. The difference is that the Western world saw the material conditions necessary to begin the slow abolition of religion, and it's no longer the force it used to be.

However, the Muslim nations saw their decline, constant threat of invasions, subjugation, threats on their culture, etc. which forced the development of "holding on" to their culture to assure identity. And, thus, the material conditions that are necessary aren't present...just goes to show you what happens when you give religious zealots the reigns of power.

And no, the "abolition" of religion is not "thought control." We teach our kids the importance of history, the scientific method, etc., don't we? Religion flies in the face of "science," and is thus "irrational." No one will "force" you not to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe, but then again, I'm sure you'll be rediculed for it. Just as you would be rediculed for "believing" that the world is flat. You won't be "forced" to accept facts, but then again, why wouldn't you want to accept reality?

By the way, as far as I can remember, you called me a "Muslim" in a previous debate of ours (by the way, are you going to respond to the last post in that thread...this was like weeks ago), which, of course, was next to a number of insults such as "afro-centric," "pseudo-intellectual," etc. which tells me that you don't hold the Muslim faith in high esteem. When I explained I don't follow any religion because it's irrational, you agreed with me and said, more or less, (I don't remember your exact words) that it's unforunate that individuals still cling to irrational ideas.

Thus, I believe you are on our side at least when it comes to the question of religion.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 11 2004, 03:03 PM
Good try, but no one is "making excuses" for anyone -- Teis is simply shedding some light on why Muslim fanatics act the way they do. It's as if you believe there's "no reason" for terrorism when, in reality, there are many reasons that should be addressed, but aren't. In your previous posts, you seem to be an advocate of addressing these issues, but in all seriousness, nothing is being done about it despite bullshit promises to the contrary.

And, oh, although you don't see born-again Christians pressing the "red button" in a market of innocent people, remember that Christians were doing the same thing for 1700 years that Muslims are doing now. The difference is that the Western world saw the material conditions necessary to begin the slow abolition of religion, and it's no longer the force it used to be.

However, the Muslim nations saw their decline, constant threat of invasions, subjugation, threats on their culture, etc. which forced the development of "holding on" to their culture to assure identity. And, thus, the material conditions that are necessary aren't present...just goes to show you what happens when you give religious zealots the reigns of power.

And no, the "abolition" of religion is not "thought control." We teach our kids the importance of history, the scientific method, etc., don't we? Religion flies in the face of "science," and is thus "irrational." No one will "force" you not to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe, but then again, I'm sure you'll be rediculed for it. Just as you would be rediculed for "believing" that the world is flat. You won't be "forced" to accept facts, but then again, why wouldn't you want to accept reality?

By the way, as far as I can remember, you called me a "Muslim" in a previous debate of ours (by the way, are you going to respond to the last post in that thread...this was like weeks ago), which, of course, was next to a number of insults such as "afro-centric," "pseudo-intellectual," etc. which tells me that you don't hold the Muslim faith in high esteem. When I explained I don't follow any religion because it's irrational, you agreed with me and said, more or less, (I don't remember your exact words) that it's unforunate that individuals still cling to irrational ideas.

Thus, I believe you are on our side at least when it comes to the question of religion.
I am on your side when it comes to religion.


Good try, but no one is "making excuses" for anyone -- Teis is simply shedding some light on why Muslim fanatics act the way they do.

But, Brooklyn-Mecca, isn't that really what excuse-making is?

Besides, lets not kid ourselves, most suicide bombers that have carried out attacks have not done so against Americans or even American interests, but against other arabs or middle easterners, and have done so over intra-regional conflicts centered around religious fundamentalism.

[revolutionindia]

Why abolish anything ?
If you don't want to marry then don't?
Who's stopping you?
But man if you don't then man you are seriously missing out

I suggest you try it before you think of abolishing it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:27 PM
Why abolish anything ?

Because there are communist dictators in training.

[Hot Dog Day #84]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 10 2004, 04:37 AM
Commitment should not be forced on people.
All the advantages are available from a de facto relationship.
It is easier to separate from a de facto relationship.

Any arguments for marriage should be put forward here. I’ll knock ‘em down.



yes, let us ban evil marriage, it forces people to commit. It takes away freedom

OH WAIT

[Hot Dog Day #84]

ok a more serious response. marriage does not force people to commit. people choose to commit, and use marriage to symbolize that. there is some cases where people are forced to marry, but that is not the fault of marriage, it is the fault of wider society.
As for religion, marriage is not neccessarily religious. It is possible to marry without stepping in a church, and many have it now see it only as a legal document.

i myself if with the right person would marry them, to show that they are that important to me. and im an atheist.


too long didnt read version: marriage doesnt force people to commit. marriage isnt always religious.

[apathy maybe]

Woops, sorry I shouldn't have started this. All I thought was, there is no point to it. Why keep something like that around.

Sure I'ld love to get rid of social class etc as well. But this was something that could happen today, with out any negatives. The people complaining generally can not see that what they want, is possible with out a social construct. (And you can see it already, people staying together, having kids, etc (and here it the amazing part) with out getting married.

[V.I.Lenin]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 11 2004, 09:13 PM
Woops, sorry I shouldn't have started this. All I thought was, there is no point to it. Why keep something like that around.

Sure I'ld love to get rid of social class etc as well. But this was something that could happen today, with out any negatives. The people complaining generally can not see that what they want, is possible with out a social construct. (And you can see it already, people staying together, having kids, etc (and here it the amazing part) with out getting married.
I see no need for you to apologize concerning the start of this thread,its always beneficial to voice ones opinions even though they may be met with opposition,moreover,this is all the more reason to voice such opinions.

While I myself believe in the sanctity of marriage,and this aside from any religious notion,still,others will invarably hold opposing views and this is their right as free-thinking human beings,by this line of reasoning my overall view of such matters is that no one should be allowed to impose their will upon others in regards to marriage,sexual orientation or religion,for these are personal matters left to the individual and as such lie beyond the reach of any restrictions and imposements introduced by means of bias preconceptions rather than collective agreement.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2004, 02:07 PM
I agree that born-again Christians are a little loopy, but then again I never saw them strap a load of dynamite to themselves and walk into a crowded market full of innocent people before pushing the red button.
But they do shoot innocent doctors who perform abortions.

[V.I.Lenin]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2004, 09:07 AM
I agree that born-again Christians are a little loopy, but then again I never saw them strap a load of dynamite to themselves and walk into a crowded market full of innocent people before pushing the red button.
seems that someone has mistaken this to be an Islamic fundamentalist site.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:54 AM
But they do shoot innocent doctors who perform abortions.
Thats true, a few do, and that is defintely messed up.

However, if we are discussing relativity, I would say that at least they are going to the source of their problem, and the argument could be made that they, in theory, are killing to save another's life (seperate debate). This provides at least a semblance of logic.

Suicide bombers just indiscrimanantly kill seemingly innocent civilians without predetermined selection.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:06 AM
seems that someone has mistaken this to be an Islamic fundamentalist site.
No, but if you check the archives, there are several instances of individuals rationalizing their actions (this post included).

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Righto, Islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces, but Christian fundamentalists have a slightly more tactful way of fighting. They make up false pretexts to go on a war, and press the red button located within their bombers.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 03:31 AM
Righto, Islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces, but Christian fundamentalists have a slightly more tactful way of fighting. They make up false pretexts to go on a war, and press the red button located within their bombers.
What does christian fundmentalism have to do with it?

I think you are drawing a false correlation.

[Osman Ghazi]

have to say that I am by no means religious, but who are you to dictate what people do and don't believe about divinity, dieties, preordainment, and the purpose of life?

"Banning religion" seems tantamount to thought control.


Let me make this clear: I personally and most others at Che-lives don't want to 'abolish' religion per se. It will just be public worship and ceremonies that will not be allowed.

If you are stupid enough to spend all day prayingat home, then that's your own fucking business, but if you try to tell other people that Jesus is coming if they just give a donation to the church, well, that's fraud.

[sparky44]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12 2004, 02:13 AM
Woops, sorry I shouldn't have started this. All I thought was, there is no point to it. Why keep something like that around.

Sure I'ld love to get rid of social class etc as well. But this was something that could happen today, with out any negatives. The people complaining generally can not see that what they want, is possible with out a social construct. (And you can see it already, people staying together, having kids, etc (and here it the amazing part) with out getting married.
You obviously have never been married. My husband and I happen to love being married to each other. It's great......

[DaCuBaN]

You obviously have never been married. My husband and I happen to love being married to each other. It's great......

That's sarcastic, right? I'm not really all that 'aware' today...

If not, why does having a legal and binding contract change the nature of your relationship in any way? As far as I can see it, it merely stems from distrust.

[apathy maybe]

If not, why does having a legal and binding contract change the nature of your relationship in any way? As far as I can see it, it merely stems from distrust.
indeed...

And no I have never been married, and have no intention of getting married. Sure I might live in a relationship with someone, but it is to the benifit of all parties not to be tied to one person.

[DaCuBaN]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of two people 'marrying' - of making a vow to stay together. It's when this becomes a legal issue that I no longer understand. If two people feel strongly enough that they will forever want to be with one another, and want to have a grand party, exchange rings and so on, that's great - I'll happily toast to their success.

Why they need to have witnesses to sign this, is beyond me. As far as I can tell, it's a practice that harkens back to the days where everyone considered arranged marriage acceptable. I certainly know that the thought of that sticks in my throat. It seems related to a marriage that rather than being founded on love and trust, has (perhaps) financial, or political foundings...

Why else would there be so much distrust?

[sparky44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:08 PM

That's sarcastic, right? I'm not really all that 'aware' today...

If not, why does having a legal and binding contract change the nature of your relationship in any way? As far as I can see it, it merely stems from distrust.
No, it's not sarcastic.......you just aren't "aware" today.

Deciding to get married doesn't stem from distrust......we got married because we wanted to, not because we had to. It doesn't change the nature of our relationship one bit......we just both happen to be a little more old fashioned than you are and enjoy the sanctity of marriage. At the time we got married he lived in Cuba and I lived in Canada.......neither of us wanted to live common-law and I didn't want to live in Cuba so I moved him here. :P :P :P

[DaCuBaN]

we got married because we wanted to, not because we had to. It doesn't change the nature of our relationship one bit

Necessity and desire are quite relevant here as I'm not insinuating that you had to get married; Quite the opposite in fact: You wanted to get married: I'm trying to find the justification behind that thought - it's totally alien to me. The only foundation that I can see for marriage is to obtain the legal benefits from it - I really cannot see why else anyone would bother. After all, you could simply have exchanged vows or some such and committed to each other forever. This way you've set yourself up so if it fails you could well have to have to wade through the courts.

My 'beef' is with the institution of marriage: I can't see what purpose it has in a truly loving relationship - My saying it 'stems' from distrust is based on that idea. Marriage only really serves a purpose when it's disbanded - and creates a hell of a mess in the process.

If it's the commitment, what difference would it make if they gave their word rather than signed their name?

Again, I can only see distrust :(


we just both happen to be a little more old fashioned than you are and enjoy the sanctity of marriage.

What is the 'sanctity' of marriage? Being raised a catholic, it's a phrase I've heard bandied around a lot. Perhaps you are of a religious persuasion, in which case the 'in the eyes of god' argument may fit, and fair enough. But for persons who consider themselves athiests...

why!?

[sparky44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 01:45 PM

Necessity and desire are quite relevant here as I'm not insinuating that you had to get married; Quite the opposite in fact: You wanted to get married: I'm trying to find the justification behind that thought - it's totally alien to me. The only foundation that I can see for marriage is to obtain the legal benefits from it - I really cannot see why else anyone would bother. After all, you could simply have exchanged vows or some such and committed to each other forever. This way you've set yourself up so if it fails you could well have to have to wade through the courts.

My 'beef' is with the institution of marriage: I can't see what purpose it has in a truly loving relationship - My saying it 'stems' from distrust is based on that idea. Marriage only really serves a purpose when it's disbanded - and creates a hell of a mess in the process.

If it's the commitment, what difference would it make if they gave their word rather than signed their name?

Again, I can only see distrust :(



What is the 'sanctity' of marriage? Being raised a catholic, it's a phrase I've heard bandied around a lot. Perhaps you are of a religious persuasion, in which case the 'in the eyes of god' argument may fit, and fair enough. But for persons who consider themselves athiests...

why!?
Again, I don't see where this [FONT=Impact]distrust [FONT=Arial]comes from. In Canada if you live common-law for more than a year and disbands can create a mess as well......especially if there are children and assets involved. It's totally alien to you because you haven't done it......there are some people that take commitment more seriously when marriage is involved than others. For my husband and I, it's what we wanted.....neither of us wanted common-law as it wasn't for us. Also for us, when I would visit him in Cuba, it was easier for us being married to travel around Cuba......not as many hassles as when we weren't married. :P :P :P

[DaCuBaN]

So you got married for the legal aspect of it?

[sparky44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:06 PM
So you got married for the legal aspect of it?
No, we got married because we wanted to......the legal aspect just comes with it. Even if there were no hassles to deal with in Cuba we still would have gotten married. You can't knock something until you've tried it........ :P :P :P

[DaCuBaN]

Evasion aside, and of course if you don't mind me asking, what made you want to marry each other, given that it didn't change your relationship in any way...

[sparky44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:24 PM
Evasion aside, and of course if you don't mind me asking, what made you want to marry each other, given that it didn't change your relationship in any way...
Don't mind at all. We married because we love each other very much. For us, and this is just our opinion, there is more committment when there is marriage then without marriage. Again that is only our opinion, everyone else can feel what they want. Neither of us believe in bringing children into the world outside of marriage.....if this doesn't answer your question.......I can elaborate for you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :blink:

[redstar2000]

You can't knock something until you've tried it........

Not a very persuasive argument.

It's not difficult to make a long list of things that "need not be tried"...the observed experiences of others are more than sufficient deterrent for a rational person.

In the U.S., between 50 and 60 percent of all marriages end in divorce (the rate fluctuates).

It is, at best, an "even bet" that you and your husband will not divorce.

Doesn't that suggest that something is wrong with the premise?

It seems to me that the premise of "lifetime commitment" is false to "human nature".

Why? Because people change as they age...you are not the same person at 30 or 40 or 50 that you were when you were 20. For a person of 20 to "make promises" that an older and different version of that person will be expected to "carry out" decades later seems to me to be unrealistic.

I've occasionally made the acquaintance of couples who've been married for decades and...it wasn't "pretty". Yes, they were "together"...unified by mutual contempt for one another. They didn't even fight; they "sniped" at each other with the most cutting remarks they could muster.

Life is tough enough...who needs that?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[sparky44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:28 PM

Not a very persuasive argument.

It's not difficult to make a long list of things that "need not be tried"...the observed experiences of others are more than sufficient deterrent for a rational person.

In the U.S., between 50 and 60 percent of all marriages end in divorce (the rate fluctuates).

It is, at best, an "even bet" that you and your husband will not divorce.

Doesn't that suggest that something is wrong with the premise?

It seems to me that the premise of "lifetime commitment" is false to "human nature".

Why? Because people change as they age...you are not the same person at 30 or 40 or 50 that you were when you were 20. For a person of 20 to "make promises" that an older and different version of that person will be expected to "carry out" decades later seems to me to be unrealistic.

I've occasionally made the acquaintance of couples who've been married for decades and...it wasn't "pretty". Yes, they were "together"...unified by mutual contempt for one another. They didn't even fight; they "sniped" at each other with the most cutting remarks they could muster.

Life is tough enough...who needs that?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I'm not trying to make a persuasiv arguement. The stats for divorce in Canada aren't the same as for the U.S......but the reason there are a lot of divorces is because too many people would rather walk away from the marriage then work on saving it......remember many people romanticize marriage without realizing that it has to be worked at everyday. Have you looked at the divorce stats in Cuba???? 75% divorce rate since divorce is so easy to get there. Sure people change as they get older, it's not like my husband and I entered marriage blind, and we're not kids......we do know what we're doing.....but many people grow closer together while others grow apart......each marriage is different. I've known many couples that have been married for decades......many are very happy while some aren't. It's an individual thing. One can't judge marriage based on statistics.....especially if they've never been married.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :blink: :blink: :P :P

[gaf]

don' t care what's important is love.don' t need a contract for it
but yeah it is everybody' s choices.....love

[sparky44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 04:35 PM
don' t care what's important is love.don' t need a contract for it
but yeah it is everybody' s choices.....love
Well put gaf. ;) ;) ;)

[Postteen]

Marriage is only a religious contract.I don't give a shit what church gives you.I'm not going to marry.
Churches do that in order to make some money out of that silly
prossess.If you don't believe in god then,why you should marry?ANd even if you believe,there's no reason to marry if you're sure that your partner truly loves you.So,it'd be a good idea to abolish it!

[James]

ANd even if you believe,there's no reason to marry if you're sure that your partner truly loves you.So,it'd be a good idea to abolish it!


Kat; you really are a living example of why it is a bad idea to teach kids too much religion. They begin to resent it, and as with all things learnt in school it is either
A) forgotten
or
B) a lie in the first place


You are wrong - unsurprisingly - generally speaking; followers of the bible do believe it is important to get married.


But never mind about the facts of a topic. Chant the trendy chants, and try not to think about it too much.
"Yeah! Fuck marriage!!"

[Postteen]

followers of the bible do believe it is important to get married.
Why?you follower of the Bible?

"Yeah! Fuck marriage!!"
Exactly.You don't have to think about it too much,have you.


Kat; you really are a living example of why it is a bad idea to teach kids too much religion
I agree.

[James]

Try replying in order - it makes more sense this way.

1. So you agree with my claim that it is bad to teach kids such things to such an extent because they will just resent it, forget the facts, and just become ignorant, yet educated at the same time. I'm glad to hear it. Educate yourself, properly.

2.
Why?

It appears you blinked and skipped a section of my post. Let me repeat it for you:
"followers of the bible do believe it is important to get married."

They believe it to be important, because they follow the bible. To clarify this point for you - let me point out that the bible is generally all in favour of marriage in "relationships". It encourages it: and it preaches against the alternative. I thought you were an expert on Paul!!

3.
you follower of the Bible?



This point is quite literally pointless.
What if i am? It doesn't change the (pro-marriage) content of the bible. What is your point?

4.
Exactly.You don't have to think about it too much,have you.


erm yeah... again, did you read the whole of my post. I said:
You are wrong - unsurprisingly - generally speaking; followers of the bible do believe it is important to get married.
But never mind about the facts of a topic. Chant the trendy chants, and try not to think about it too much.
"Yeah! Fuck marriage!!"


And before you change the content of our posts, let me clarify that this is all in response to your claim:


ANd even if you believe,there's no reason to marry if you're sure that your partner truly loves you.So,it'd be a good idea to abolish it!

[Postteen]

It appears you blinked and skipped a section of my post. Let me repeat it for you:
"followers of the bible do believe it is important to get married."

They believe it to be important, because they follow the bible. To clarify this point for you - let me point out that the bible is generally all in favour of marriage in "relationships". It encourages it: and it preaches against the alternative

That shows how narrow-minded the "followers of the bible are".Do they just say:"Well if Bible says it,then it's correct,it's important,let's do it!" ?

Why is it important?Because bible says it?


This point is quite literally pointless.
What if i am? It doesn't change the (pro-marriage) content of the bible. What is your point?
No,I don't want to say anything here.It was a question.I put "you follower of the bible instead of saying James.


I thought you were an expert on Paul!!
I hate him.

[cormacobear]

Marriage has been around a lot longer than any religion practiced today. It developed independantly all over the globe.

The reason you have witnesses at a wedding is a legal issue, there are stating that they know you that you are not immediate relations and in the west that you are not already married.

The move in Canada to grant homosexual Unions the same legal status as married individuals will enevitably mean poligamy, and polyandry will be recognized as well. I have no objection to this save that polygamy here in the west has the highest rates of incest, abuse, and female slavery. Perhaps bringing these union more into the public will make this easier to prevent.

If the church was in it for money they would probably charge a litlle more than the cost of two packs of smokes for what in a Catholic union works out to be about 16 hours of work.

Our marriage was one of the funnest days of my life. No one has acknowledge the spiritual and emotional aspects of marriage. If this were not the case I doubt a religious ceremony with your family and friends would not have remained fundamental to procreative relationships in hundreds of religions for more than 5000 years.

[apathy maybe]

Marriage was developed as an economic thing. Someone had to look after the kids, and someone had so support that first person and the kids. We are civilised enough (I hope) that we would not let either the person looking after the kids or the kids to starve or go un-feed etc. Though in some parts of the world, this may still be the case.

In Australia at least, there is no reason to get married, beyond the religous ones. And if your partner refuses to stay with you unless you get married, did they truely love you anyway?

[cormacobear]

Marriage was around during the nomadic period of human history, when everyone worked hard and taking care of the small children was generally the responsibility of the older less active members of the extended family. As all able bodied adults were required for the laborious task of providing for the clan or tribe.

Getting married meant our combined income moved us into a higher tax bracket. So economics played no role. (although presents were fun)

[redstar2000]

...but the reason there are a lot of divorces is because too many people would rather walk away from the marriage then work on saving it......remember many people romanticize marriage without realizing that it has to be worked at every day.

Yes, I've heard this many times...many people seem to think that relationships and marriages could be "saved" if people would only "work at them."

The problem is that most people...already have a job!

Why would any rational person want a second one?


Have you looked at the divorce stats in Cuba???? 75% divorce rate since divorce is so easy to get there.

Sounds good to me! And also reveals, I think, what people would do if they had the freedom to act on their own desires.

By the way, I understand that the vast majority of divorce actions are initiated by women (around 80% or so in the U.S.).

Which may give you a hint of who the institution of marriage really benefits.


No one has acknowledged the spiritual and emotional aspects of marriage.

Probably because such "intangibles" cannot be reliably measured...or even detected.

Or even defined.


Getting married meant our combined income moved us into a higher tax bracket. So economics played no role.

:lol:

Are you still paying rent on two apartments?

Have your respective parents still failed to stump up the down payment on a house for the happy couple?

The economic benefits of marriage have been researched...and are quite substantial over a lifetime.

Oddly enough, this appears to be especially true where one partner is the "bread-winner" and the other is the "home-maker"...though that "edge" may be declining.

That's not to say that people contemplating marriage run a "cost-benefit" analysis before making their "vows"...but I think that most people are not unaware of the material advantages of conforming to their cultural norms.

It "pays" to "fit in".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[James]

That shows how narrow-minded the "followers of the bible are".Do they just say:"Well if Bible says it,then it's correct,it's important,let's do it!" ?

Why is it important?Because bible says it?


Kat - it isn't a debatable point really. They follow the bible - thus they believe in marriage.

True you may not argee. That's great: argue your corner girl.

But i'm afraid you are wrong when you say "ANd even if you believe,there's no reason to marry if you're sure that your partner truly loves you.So,it'd be a good idea to abolish it!"

Because there is a reason. You may not like it; but thats not really relevant.
And i'm not prepared to get into a massive debate on the bible and the nature of faith. Sorry.


No,I don't want to say anything here.It was a question.I put "you follower of the bible instead of saying James.


ok :blink:
That doesn't make sense to me (maybe it's just me). If you are asking if i "follow the bible": then my answer is - "i try and want to"




Anyway - the only reason i posted was to correct you.
If you believe (christian), there IS reason to marry. But ONLY (in my opinion) if you're sure that your partner truly loves you.

[dotcommie]

why abolish it?

legally it may as well be null and void. but religous matromony should be allowed it doesn't hurt anyone, its just gods blessing on too couples love though i despise religion this is one part of religion that doesn't harm anyone.

[apathy maybe]

The question is not "why abolish it?" but rather "why not abolish it?". Do you also support the digging of holes then filling them in? There is no point to it (assume no point) it is simply a waste of time and effort.

(Digging a hole and filling it in again is one action. It does absolutly nothing, so why do it? Marriage is the same. It does absolutly nothing, so why do it?)

Also there are plenty of reasons to get rid of it. It prevents one partner from dominating another to nearly the same extent.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by redstar2000[email protected] 8 2004, 03:46 PM

Yes, I've heard this many times...many people seem to think that relationships and marriages could be "saved" if people would only "work at them."

The problem is that most people...already have a job!

Why would any rational person want a second one?



Sounds good to me! And also reveals, I think, what people would do if they had the freedom to act on their own desires.

By the way, I understand that the vast majority of divorce actions are initiated by women (around 80% or so in the U.S.).

Which may give you a hint of who the institution of marriage really benefits.



Probably because such "intangibles" cannot be reliably measured...or even detected.

Or even defined.



:lol:

Are you still paying rent on two apartments?

Have your respective parents still failed to stump up the down payment on a house for the happy couple?

The economic benefits of marriage have been researched...and are quite substantial over a lifetime.

Oddly enough, this appears to be especially true where one partner is the "bread-winner" and the other is the "home-maker"...though that "edge" may be declining.

That's not to say that people contemplating marriage run a "cost-benefit" analysis before making their "vows"...but I think that most people are not unaware of the material advantages of conforming to their cultural norms.

It "pays" to "fit in".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
All these economic benifits can come about merely by moving in with another person. You don't need to get married to get them ...

Beyond the religious arguments and the "but I love her" are there any other reasons NOT to abolish it?

[cormacobear]

So are you talking about getting rid of legal recognition, trying to have all religions abandon the ceremony, stopping people from living together, or having families?

Apathy Maybe
"Also there are plenty of reasons to get rid of it. It prevents one partner from dominating another to nearly the same extent. "

Yah I'm sick of being dominated and if she ever leaves me I suppose I get half since she makes all the money.

[apathy maybe]

Basically I don't see the point in recognising legally something such as marriage. I don't see why we should stop religious peoples from marrying, but it wouldn't be recognised.

I thing people should be allowed to live together, have families together etc.

If two people get married, they are effectively forced to stay together. One person can hold the other to ransom. Like in your case, you get half of the goods even though she did all the work?

[Palmares]

Oh the sanctity of marriage... :lol:

People are free to get married if they wish, but...

I believe it is not necessary, and is infact stupid. As it has been noted many times, all the benefits from marriage can be adequetely attained through a defacto relationship. The real difference between these two types of 'relationships' is that marriage is a ritual, and it centralises the idealism of love in the day the couple gets married, the ceremony, the first night, and the ring. What is the point of these? Think about Christmas: you centralise celebration, giving , loving , etc into one day in the year. The point from this is, centralising such things, infact feelings, takes one's eyes away from the everyday and points them to this day of idealism. I see this as a cop-out.

Marriage is nothing about 'love'.

A loving relationship is something that should maintained frequently, but marriage is more like taking out your lover to an expensive restaurant once month rather than a cuddle everyday. Marriage in my opinion, is always either about a cop-out you can buy (as in, you can buy love), or a cope out that is centralised idealism (occasional love, not everyday).

For all these reasons (and possibly more), marriage should be abolished, as it is a waste of time.

[Postteen]

ok
That doesn't make sense to me (maybe it's just me). If you are asking if i "follow the bible": then my answer is - "i try and want to"that's why I called you like that!

[redstar2000]

So are you talking about getting rid of legal recognition, trying to have all religions abandon the ceremony, stopping people from living together, or having families?

Only the first choice...as I believe I stated very early in this thread.

The other stuff is a matter of indifference to me...what arrangements people make for their private lives (as long as they don't abuse each other or the kids) is none of my concern.

I do attempt to "advise" people that a lot of what they think about these things is probably or certainly not true...but we can't make a "law" against human folly.

It would be unenforcible. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas