Marriage

[Everyday Anarchy]

I was thinking about marriage this morning and I was curious how many leftists feel about marriage.

Before anyone starts answering, I think we should ask ourselves "what is marriage?" Marriage may be a religious rite or a legal bond, but for others it's a commitment to love. Someday I hope to be married, wedding rings and all. If getting married in this day means going to a church and being legally brought together, that's fine with me. The church and law involved is just for show and as a means to 'marry' in a capitalist world. So the religious and legal parts of marriage are more for others to know we're married, for me and my wife it would be something much more real.


Anyway, what are others' opinions on marriage? I expect to hear a few 'free love' advocates here.

[Scout Lemar]

Traditional marriage, before the civil rights movements, that is, have always been very feudalistic. It was always basically a way for a male to 'own' a female. It is still somewhat like that in modern society, but a bit more just. I believe also that until gays get the right to marry who they choose, marriage will continue to be something requiring elimination. That's my opinion, and I think that's what many radical leftists believe, although there have been numerous Marxists that have gotten married in the past, such as Karl Marx himself as well as Vladimir Lenin.

[MrDoom]

Abolish marriage!* :angry:





*As a recognized public institution.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:00 am
Abolish marriage!* :angry:





*As a recognized public institution.
yeah I agree. Why does the state have anything to do with marriage. Actually, why does anyone except the couple have anything to do with mariage?

[La Comédie Noire]

If two people can live togeather for the entirety of their lives than they will. Marriage is just a superflous title that complicates things when they don't work out.

[Cheung Mo]

Hoxha sucks...The party in Venezuela that claims to follow his ideology endorsed Rosales and committed atrocities against Chavez supporters during the attempted coup of 2002.

Incidentally, Mao is a pretty low standard to hold ourselves to when it comes to human relationships: His regime persecuted those they viewed as sexual deviants and would not allow divorce (This has since changed in China.) in spite of the fact that he was infamous as an adulterer.

[Forward Union]

I think my views on marriage are widely known around here. I fully oppose it. But for anyone interested on getting a well thought out critique, I reccomend reading Marriage and Love (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/marriageandlove.html) by Emma Goldman.

[VukBZ2005]

I find the concept of marriage to be quite foolish nowadays. The reason why lies in the fact that marriage promotes the continuation of the idea that a woman should be viewed as a piece of property by the husband, which is why the problem of domestic abuse is still such a presence in our lives today.

I also think marriage is unnecessary to confirm the love that has the potential to exist between two individuals, whether they be a man or a woman, a woman or a woman, or a man and a man, and in a classless and stateless society, I would believe that no such institution would need to exist to confirm that kind of love.

[Chocobo]

When you label love you destroy love. Love is an emotion, it is various and finite. Any label used on love destroys its real emotional experience, which is of course freedom! Labels only restrict love, if you feel love for more then one person but in a relationship, you feel restricted to the relationship, where you can't express your love for the other person(s). Usually, it amounts in an ultimatum, only me or no me. Labeling love destroys love!

[Cryotank Screams]

What is the point in marriage?

I mean once you get past the "oh, it's a ceremony to dedicate yourself to one another in a monogomous relationship, and to profess your love," idiocy, then what other function/purpose does it serve? Isn't the entire point of a relationship to dedicate yourself to your partner(s), and profess your love daily anyway? Why exactly would you need marriage and contractual agreement to do this?

The whole apologist argument seems in my opinion to be far-fetched, and truly marriage serves no purpose what so ever, I agree comepletely with Goldman, and with Sade on this one.

"The horror of wedlock, the most appalling, the most loathsome of all the bonds humankind has devised for its own discomfort and degradation."-Marquis de Sade.

"Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact. It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding, more exacting. Its returns are insignificantly small compared with the investments."-Emma Goldman.

[bolshevik butcher]

Personally I don't care about Marrige, if people want to get married that's fine with me, I don't really think it's an issue that leftists really need to get bogged down in. If people choose to show their love by getting married I really don't see what's the fuss in it. Personally I wouldn't want to be married but if others want to that's their descision.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

pretty pointless

[CheRev]

Against marriage here. There are one or two positive things that I can think in relation to it but these are short term, such as the coming together of family and friends that may not have met each other for a while and then the initial boost in the relationship. After that I can't think of much in favour of it. I'm pretty sure a relationship can survive just as long under non-married circumstances as under married. You don't need the fear of being an outcast of your church or fear of social stigma to keep a relationship together. Well, I hope so anyway. :unsure:

[Ol' Dirty]

If you want to live in monogamal "bliss" for the rest of your life, go right ahead, but don't expect me to go through with it.

I'm a bit surprized that no one has brought up gay marriage, but, of course, we all gree on that topic.

[apathy maybe]

As has been pointed out, there are a variety of threads on marriage. But what the hell.


My views have changed slightly since the last thread. My girlfriend is Japanese, I am Australian and she is working in Switzerland.

While we can live together easily in Australia (different sex, monogamous de facto relationships having equal status for most things to different sex, monogamous marriages), in other countries it is hard. Such as Japan and Switzerland.

So while I am philosophically opposed to marriage (and my GF understands this and does not *want* to get married), if I want to stay in the same country as my GF it is easy if we are married.

It boils down to the fact that laws and countries are shitty arbitrary restrictions on human movement and relationships.

[Apatride]

Marriage is a statement in which each party takes the other for granted; in my opinion there is nothing less romantical in the world!

I was just having this discussion with my girlfriend yesterday and tough we would like to have a big party to invite all our friends to celebrate our love, we will never put our union under the symbol of a religion or state.

Actually I have just started a procedure of apostasy, that is to make my baptism void and have my name stricken out of the catholic church records. No baptism = no marriage :)

I strongly invite all of you who were baptised and don't believe to do the same. :AO:

[cumbia]

Marriage is capital for the state and the church. Of course, the oppostion for homosexuals to marry isnt about securing christian "values". Its about securing christian votes.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

In some counties now, particularly the USA, Marraige itself is somthing to be exploited.

through all types of propaghanda and state incentives, the marriage market has become one of the fastest growing sectors within the U$A.

Some people, lots who cant actually afford it, spend thousands on weddings.

The actual ceremony, and its grandure is what is perpetuated by business.

Getting married and having an exspensive weeding seems to be the all important attribute to marriage.

I cant help but think, this may be partly why gay marriages are becoming more accepted .

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 09, 2006 06:48 am
I think my views on marriage are widely known around here. I fully oppose it. But for anyone interested on getting a well thought out critique, I reccomend reading Marriage and Love (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/marriageandlove.html) by Emma Goldman.
Well, considering the fact that your member title is "marriage is a farce", I think it is no mystery what your views on the subject are. I personally don't agree with the idea of marriage because I believe that love is an amazing thing for humans to experience and that it should not be restricted to one person.

[SilverA]

I support/practice marriage.

But I also support the rights of individuals who do not wish to get married. My fiancee comes from a culture which places high values on marriage, for most of the wrong reasons. But, regardless, I feel that a mongomous relationship with her, is what I desire.

No need to knock it. Consider a strong marriage two less people who may take the person you like away. :D

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by SilverA
Consider a strong marriage two less people who may take the person you like away.
That sort of attitude is exactly the problem- the idea that you own your partner. Basically, if your partner wants a relationship or sex with someone else- it's up to them. Nobody can "take them away" from you against their will, and if they want to leave you they bloody should be able to, without being tied down by law or religious or moral convention.

[SilverA]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+December 14, 2006 10:53 pm--> (Mujer Libre @ December 14, 2006 10:53 pm)
SilverA
Consider a strong marriage two less people who may take the person you like away.
That sort of attitude is exactly the problem- the idea that you own your partner. Basically, if your partner wants a relationship or sex with someone else- it's up to them. Nobody can "take them away" from you against their will, and if they want to leave you they bloody should be able to, without being tied down by law or religious or moral convention. [/b]
Well, I think the "IDEA" is that you should both complete each other where neither feels the need for the touch or sexual affection of another.

Of course, if you feel the need to be with someone else, by all means, don't get married. It is a choice, not a law. Unless you come from where my fiancee comes from. Then it is law. But it better not be with some filthy foreign guy. :(

But any ways. I digress. Sometimes, a mutual ownership of each other can be something that makes you happy. Take dominatrix-ism, for a rather unpropoartianate example.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by SilverA
Well, I think the "IDEA" is that you should both complete each other where neither feels the need for the touch or sexual affection of another.
Fine, but why feel the need to marry if that is the case? You can be lifelong monogamous partners without it. Also, that isn't the case for the majority of people, so why reinforce lifelong monogamy as the norm by getting married? Marriage also perpetuates heteropatriarchal norms, and thus, by getting married, you reinforce thse norms and institutions.


But any ways. I digress. Sometimes, a mutual ownership of each other can be something that makes you happy. Take dominatrix-ism, for a rather unpropoartianate example.
That's domination, not ownership. Also, in most cases relationships of dominance are only related to sex, not to daily life- so your point doesn't really apply.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 06:57 pm
Take dominatrix-ism, for a rather unpropoartianate example.
S&M, is manly about sexual pleasure, achieved through sexual submission, sexual dominance, and often times sexual pain, and not about "ownership," of any of the participating individuals, it's about creating a sexual fantasy for both partners, once the fantasy and sex is done, there is no "ownership," of any sort, and it could also be argued that there never was "ownership," in the fantasy to begin with.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Hoxha sucks...The party in Venezuela that claims to follow his ideology endorsed Rosales and committed atrocities against Chavez supporters during the attempted coup of 2002.

Yeah, and in the Dominican Republic the Hoxhaist party lead the formation of grass roots committees of workers and farmers, housewives, youths, etc., in the form of soviets .. what's your point? Let's look at things objectively and support gains made by the working class and defend against attacks. Labels, especially when they're self-applied, usually aren't a good indicator.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Yeah, and in the Dominican Republic the Hoxhaist party lead the formation of grass roots committees of workers and farmers, housewives, youths, etc., in the form of soviets ..
And this party is called....