Should marriage be banned?

[Dr Mindbender]

Follow up thread to the split discussion in ''should gay marriage be allowed''

Link- http://www.revleft.com/vb/same-sex-marriage-t91229/index.html?p=1279070


The existence of marriage as a legally recognised institution is unacceptable. By nature it is the idea that a relationship is less valid if it isn't recognised by the government and that's bullshit.


I think its more complicated than that. Many religious and non religious folk view it as a way of making their promises to each other public in front of others. Also it is an integral part of some religion and i support the right of others to practice their beliefs regardless of how absurd i view them personally.

The only part i disagree with strongly is the copius amount of money that people are encouraged to spend on their wedding even when it outside their means.

Besides which even if you 'ban' marriage people are still going to do it so i don't see the point (unless it's a forced marriage).

I think another important part you are missing out on is the legalities, specifically pertaining to divorce. If your girlfriend dumps you then she can dump you on the street but under marriage you have some legal protection and can claim 50% of the overall assets. Outside of marriage a solicitor (lawyer in the US) can offer you no such protection.

[XII Bones IIX]

I think marriages should be banned. I find it ludicrous that people pledge their lives to each other and once you don't lie what's going on you can pack your shit and leave. Plus you either lose your wages or you're getting someone elses. It's nuts.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think marriages should be banned. I find it ludicrous that people pledge their lives to each other and once you don't lie what's going on you can pack your shit and leave. Plus you either lose your wages or you're getting someone elses. It's nuts.

Not all people do that. Even in the context of marriage, people practice open relationships and polygamy (each to their own i say)

Plus theres the legal factor which i said above. Not everyone wants a legally binding contract while it suits others which is why i think you need a legal measure of ''this is how far i want to commit to her/him''.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why the hell should it be anyone else's business? Don't like marriage? Then don't have one! It's as simple as that!

[Coggeh]

Ban, ....for a laugh :lol:.. I voted to ban but ya i agree with NoXion, same thing as abortion really don't like it ? don't have one .

[F9]

No,Of course!Its no one else business what people decide to do.If they want to married, just do it.

Fuserg9:star:

[Dr Mindbender]

Why the hell should it be anyone else's business? Don't like marriage? Then don't have one! It's as simple as that!

some members seems to think that society views marriage as more 'worthy' in the eyes of the state than non-married relationships.
Which is true to an extent, but i still think a marriage ban is inoperable for the reasons i've already given.

[Catbus]

I voted yes, but now I realized that I should have voted no. I don't really think it should be the governments business, but if two people in a relationship want a ceremony, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to have one.

[BobKKKindle$]

No, marriage should not be banned. A marriage is essentially a contract between two people (although in some societies a marriage can occur between more than two people, or one person can be married to multiple people at once) whereby they agree to restrict the scope of their sexual relations, and if the contract is broken they must share some of their property with that person depending on what each person has contributed to the marriage. Although communists see marriage as a symptom of bourgeois society and one of the key elements of the nuclear family, the best way to diminish the prevalence of marriage is not to pass arbitrary bans which prevent people from entering into voluntary agreements with each other, but to remove the structures which give rise to and support the family, especially the capitalist system.

[Dr Mindbender]

but how will marital legalities work in a post revolutionary society?

This brings me back to my point about asset and child custody rights in the event of a divorce or break up.

[ernie]

but how will marital legalities work in a post revolutionary society?

This brings me back to my point about asset and child custody rights in the event of a divorce or break up.
In a communist society, marriage would not exist, of course. That is, people can promise to have exclusive sexual rights to each other (and they could even be recognized by some independent organization, I suppose), but it wouldn't be a contract. If there is no state, how could you enforce such a contract? Who would enforce it? Besides, I expect future revolutionaries to be way past all this monogamy nonsense.

As for child custody, the child should decide who they want to live with. Easy :).

[Harrycombs]

As for child custody, the child should decide who they want to live with. Easy :).

That might be quite damaging to a child to have to make such a decision. Thats are a really hard issue to solve.

I voted no, of course. If people want to get married, let em.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That might be quite damaging to a child to have to make such a decision.

As opposed to the damage caused by having someone else who doesn't know what's like to live with either of the parents make the decision?

Or the damage caused to the child by living with two parents who hate each other?

The decision has to be made, and the child is the best one to make that decision.

[bcbm]

Marriage shouldn't be "banned," it just shouldn't be involved with the government in any way.

[redguard2009]

What kind of question is this? Is this really what we ought to be doing, discussing whether or not marriage should be banned, what should happen to McDonalds and whose face will be printed on money under communism?

[Comrade B]

Marriage in the legal sense should be nonexistent, but I see no need to prevent religious people from being "married" in their traditional manners

[AAFCE]

Meh, I voted yes, because it shouldnt have any legal benefits.

I do think if people love each other, then they should be allowed too.

So.. Yes, it should be banned as a state recognized thing, but No, we shouldnt send in the black helicopters for those who choose to/

[Junius]

Originally Posted by Ernie
That is, people can promise to have exclusive sexual rights to each other (and they could even be recognized by some independent organization, I suppose), but it wouldn't be a contract.1. People can have 'exclusive sexual rights' today without entering any contract.

2. Marriage does not preclude multiple sex partners.


As for child custody, the child should decide who they want to live with. Easy
A child is not always in a good position to determine what is in their best interests; nor should parents have to compete to win their child's preference. The question is what is in the best interests of the child.


Besides, I expect future revolutionaries to be way past all this monogamy nonsense.Speak for yourself.


Originally Posted by BobKindles
and if the contract is broken they must share some of their property with that person depending on what each person has contributed to the marriage.No, it is not a matter of 'must.' Divorce is an election, not a matter of 'breach of contract' which automatically negates the marriage.


Originally Posted by Noxion
As opposed to the damage caused by having someone else who doesn't know what's like to live with either of the parents make the decision?I think an independent arbitrator determining whom a child should live with is rare. Most often, it would be a matter of agreement between parents; typically the mother takes the child.

[JohnnyC]

I think marriages should be banned. I find it ludicrous that people pledge their lives to each other and once you don't lie what's going on you can pack your shit and leave. Plus you either lose your wages or you're getting someone elses. It's nuts.
I think that even slavery (only volontary, of course) shouldn't be banned.If someone wants to be slave,married or even dead it's his choice only and has nothing to do with other persons.It's kinda authoritarian to think you can decide wheather two willing human beings have the right to get married or not.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As opposed to the damage caused by having someone else who doesn't know what's like to live with either of the parents make the decision?

Or the damage caused to the child by living with two parents who hate each other?

The decision has to be made, and the child is the best one to make that decision.
Child: I want to live with my mommy.
Father: But look, I bought you lots and lots of candy!
Child: Mmm, ok, I'll go with dad instead.
Mother: No! Wait! I'll let you stay up late every night!
Child: I don't know... can I have a puppy?
Mother: Yes, yes!
Father: I'll get you two!

That will be fun to watch. :rolleyes:

[Foldered]

No, of course it shouldn't be banned. Let people get married if they want to. Despite my entire disagreement with marriage (its roots in patriarchy/the oppression of women, etc), people should still be able to do it if they would like to. I, personally, am never getting married. I still haven't even decided if I ever even want to be in a monogamous relationship again.

[redguard2009]

I've been in a relationship for nearly a decade and frankly I could not not want to be married more. I don't care if someone wants to have God look down on them and bless their holy union of spirit and soul or what-the-fuck-ever but the whole idea of marriage, from lifelong monogamy to white gowns and tuxedos is revolting to me. Frankly, two people who truely feel for each other do not need some arbitrary state-sanctioned piece of paper declaring their love.

[oblisk]

No. Marriage should be protected as a traditional bond between a man and a woman. (Marriage also has Abrahamic-biblical roots.)

[Dr Mindbender]

No. Marriage should be protected as a traditional bond between a man and a woman. (Marriage also has Abrahamic-biblical roots.)

care to elaborate? :confused:

Why do bonds between men and women require greater protection than bonds between anyone else?

secondly its abrahamic-biblical roots are not of importance to the rest of us.

[Revy]

How do you "ban" marriage? Arrest people (gay and straight) for pledging themselves in a lifelong commitment to each other? No thanks!:rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Child: I want to live with my mommy.
Father: But look, I bought you lots and lots of candy!
Child: Mmm, ok, I'll go with dad instead.
Mother: No! Wait! I'll let you stay up late every night!
Child: I don't know... can I have a puppy?
Mother: Yes, yes!
Father: I'll get you two!

That will be fun to watch. :rolleyes:

Don't be such a blithering idiot. The child would of course be allowed to make their decision without pressure from either parent. It's not as if they're being asked what the square root of 22.453 is.

Quite apart from the fact that kids aren't as stupid or shallow as you make them out to be.


(Marriage also has Abrahamic-biblical roots.)

Rubbish. Marriage is found in many cultures other than the Abrahamic.

[Dr Mindbender]

Don't be such a blithering idiot. The child would of course be allowed to make their decision without pressure from either parent. It's not as if they're being asked what the square root of 22.453 is.

Quite apart from the fact that kids aren't as stupid or shallow as you make them out to be.


I think there is some truth in what he's saying though. Children are seldomly mature enough to make decisions based upon what is best for their long term interests. They might want to live with daddy because of his x box 360, playstation 3 and super fast internet connection despite the fact he is a neglegent alcoholic that forgets their development needs in favour of a more authoritarian mother who is better equipped to prepare them for the outside world.

[Junius]

Originally posted by Noxion
The child would of course be allowed to make their decision without pressure from either parent.You say this as if by saying it the problem goes away.

How are you going to ensure that a parent does not unfairly influence or manipulate a child? Are you going to have someone monitor the parent's relationship with the child? Don't you think that since a child is going to make a fairly significant impact on someone's life, whether they chose to live with the respective parent or not, that the adults should have a say? Doesn't it seem a bit unfair to ignore the circumstances of a parent and make the child the sole decider? Don't you think that a better scenario would be where all parties come to a mutually beneficial arrangement?


Originally posted by Noxion
It's not as if they're being asked what the square root of 22.453 is.Unfortunately, it's more complex than a maths question. It's a matter of a child deciding what is in their best interests - even when those interests are not at all appealing to the child. It's a matter of choosing something which may have quite an influence on a child's future, of which they simply do not have the experience to form a conclusive opinion.

[ernie]

1. People can have 'exclusive sexual rights' today without entering any contract.
Yeah, and I am saying that's how "marriage" will be like in a classless society.


A child is not always in a good position to determine what is in their best interests; nor should parents have to compete to win their child's preference. The question is what is in the best interests of the child.
Under normal circumstances, the child is always in the best position to determine what is in their best interest.


Speak for yourself.
I did say "I expect" didn't I? I am speculating, going by how relationships are nowadays.


No, it is not a matter of 'must.' Divorce is an election, not a matter of 'breach of contract' which automatically negates the marriage.
But the question is: can the breacher be punished for breaching that contract? My opinion is that they cannot (and should not).


I think an independent arbitrator determining whom a child should live with is rare. Most often, it would be a matter of agreement between parents; typically the mother takes the child.
It's not for the parents decide (even if they agree). In a truly free society, every individual -- including children -- should be able to decide something as basic as where they live.

[ernie]

Child: I want to live with my mommy.
Father: But look, I bought you lots and lots of candy!
Child: Mmm, ok, I'll go with dad instead.
Mother: No! Wait! I'll let you stay up late every night!
Child: I don't know... can I have a puppy?
Mother: Yes, yes!
Father: I'll get you two!

That will be fun to watch. :rolleyes:
LOL. Is that how your parents controlled you? :D

Children are not morons and are perfectly capable of deciding what they need. Why is this so hard to understand for so many leftists?

[ernie]

Don't you think that since a child is going to make a fairly significant impact on someone's life, whether they chose to live with the respective parent or not, that the adults should have a say? Doesn't it seem a bit unfair to ignore the circumstances of a parent and make the child the sole decider?
Would you like it if somebody were able to decide where you had to live based on the fact that you will make a "fairly significant impact" on their life. Everyone should get to choose where they live.


Don't you think that a better scenario would be where all parties come to a mutually beneficial arrangement?
This is what most likely will happen in most situations. The child should have the last say, though.


Unfortunately, it's more complex than a maths question. It's a matter of a child deciding what is in their best interests - even when those interests are not at all appealing to the child. It's a matter of choosing something which may have quite an influence on a child's future, of which they simply do not have the experience to form a conclusive opinion.
Indeed, it is a very complex question. But who's going to make it the decision? What if a parent decides wrong? Since we can't tell the future to see where the child will be better off, the best we can do is let him/her make an informed decision. Later, if the child changes their mind, then it should be easy to go live somewhere else.

[Junius]

Under normal circumstances, the child is always in the best position to determine what is in their best interest.Assertion requires proof. When I was 13 I wanted to leave school (I would expect that this is a normal event for most teenagers). If I had been allowed to then I would most likely be in a much worse position now. Also, I think it really is unfair to place such responsibility on a child on making such a decision. My parents divorced when I was fairly young - I didn't know what over, I thought that I might have something to do with it - can you imagine the pressure of making a child at that point chose between a parent? I don't think children should have to suffer because of parent's mistakes.


But the question is: can the breacher be punished for breaching that contract? My opinion is that they cannot (and should not).Then we would both agree. But the point I was addressing to this individual is that this is not how marriages work today.


I did say "I expect" didn't I? I am speculating, going by how relationships are nowadays.My point was that you speak for yourself and no one else; and that is what communists should recognize; that no relationship form has superiority over another, that it should indeed be a matter of personal preference. This may include monogamy, this may include all sorts of other freaky stuff.


It's not for the parents decide (even if they agree). In a truly free society, every individual -- including children -- should be able to decide something as basic as where they live. Its a bigger question of 'where they live.' Its a question of whether the parent is capable of providing three meals a day to the child, a question of whether the parent is going to help the child with their homework, a question of whether the parent is going to nurture and love the child, a question of whether the parent is going to abuse the child, a question of whether a parent is going to resent a child for choosing them, a question of whether a parent is economically and socially able to raise the child...and many more questions which should demand more than one head.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think there is some truth in what he's saying though. Children are seldomly mature enough to make decisions based upon what is best for their long term interests. They might want to live with daddy because of his x box 360, playstation 3 and super fast internet connection despite the fact he is a neglegent alcoholic that forgets their development needs in favour of a more authoritarian mother who is better equipped to prepare them for the outside world.

What the hell is "authoritarian" supposed to mean in this case? In the scenario you describe, the father sounds like a better option by far. He can't be that much of an alcoholic if he's got enough money left over to pamper his kids - in fact he sounds positively angelic. An "authoritarian" mother sounds like a total harridan!


How are you going to ensure that a parent does not unfairly influence or manipulate a child? Are you going to have someone monitor the parent's relationship with the child?

Sure, why not? Nothing too invasive, just a friendly visit every week or so for the first few months to ensure the child is happy in their new home, switching to a monthly visit for the rest of the year after that. Plus of course, the child should be able to change their mind if things turn out badly.

But of course, that would be treating kids like people instead of property now, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:


Don't you think that since a child is going to make a fairly significant impact on someone's life, whether they chose to live with the respective parent or not, that the adults should have a say?If the adult concerned doesn't want the kid, then it seems unlikely that the kid would want to live with them. Kids are smart enough to know when someone doesn't like them.


Doesn't it seem a bit unfair to ignore the circumstances of a parent and make the child the sole decider? Don't you think that a better scenario would be where all parties come to a mutually beneficial arrangement?The child is a human being. As such, their wishes should be respected. It's as simple as that!


Unfortunately, it's more complex than a maths question. It's a matter of a child deciding what is in their best interests - even when those interests are not at all appealing to the child. It's a matter of choosing something which may have quite an influence on a child's future, of which they simply do not have the experience to form a conclusive opinion.Of course they have the experience... they've only been living with the parents right up until they decided to split!

It's a simple matter. All the kid needs to do is "pick one". They will pick who they want to live with.

Should you or some other third party have the right to force someone to live with another person - on the grounds that you are bigger than them, and therefore they can't punch your face in?

[Pawn Power]

Marriage is indeed a ritual that has its place in a wide spectrum of cultures. A law which bares willing individuals to take place in symbolic cultural practices which to not harm others is pretty draconian.

[Dr Mindbender]

What the hell is "authoritarian" supposed to mean in this case? In the scenario you describe, the father sounds like a better option by far. He can't be that much of an alcoholic if he's got enough money left over to pamper his kids - in fact he sounds positively angelic. An "authoritarian" mother sounds like a total harridan!


I use the word authoritarian in the loosest sense possible (i couldnt think of a more appropriate word) by which i mean making sure they go to bed at a reasonable time, doing their homework etc. If the father is a neglegent deadbeat who fails to take an interest in the child's welfare i fail to see how he has a leg to stand on in terms of being a worthy parent.

Just because the father has some assets, it doesnt mean he worked for it (perhaps it is subsequential gains from the divorce proceedings who knows?) Compared to my wife, i am lazy as hell but she pampers me with expensive tidbits none the less.

[Elway]

To me, this can only be answered in terms of a post revolutionary society. As people are working to expand marriage to be recognized, the presumption is that you won't get a majority to agree to "ban" it in one of the United States, states, which could presumably ban it, but again, which one would.

The question can only be answered in terms of a post-Revolutionary society.

1. Such a society wouldn't recognize most of the laws passed by previous regimes. Some would still stand, such as definitions for murder, and a lot of the vehicle code. But marriage has mostly to do with property, and who would care.

2. There would be no legal pathway to "get married" in post-Revolutionary society.

3. Many coulples would get toether to get married anyway, based on a personal ceremony that would be meaningful to them, but not to the state, or its interests, and who cares. If two people declare their love, which is what marrigae is, when you remove the property concerns, and they do it amoung their friends, how would you "stop" them anyway? Got better things to do with the tools of the state anyway.

[AAFCE]

I can agree that most children cant make a logical decision when choosing which parent to live with. I was at a point like that, but I wanted to live with my Dad for awhile, whilst not understanding how it (Me) would crush him financially etc. So eventually I never stayed with him, but now (15) I have made a decision to move in with my Grandparents, and I havent looked back yet.

My opinions of people at 6 < Opinions of people at 15

[JorgeLobo]

Ban marriage ? Then what would the gay activists have to whine about?

[Dr Mindbender]

Ban marriage ? Then what would the gay activists have to whine about?

Seriously fuck off, you hetero centric chauvinist shithead.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I don't think that the actual ceremony of marriage should be banned, but the legal and economic assistance you get from a court-issued license of marriage should be sliced up. For example, hospital visits and medical decisions, exemption policies from the property tax, sick leave, discounts on loans, insurance policies, often privilege heterosexual married couples. These should be clearly be granted to all workers.

[Chapaev]

Marriage regulates and realizes the natural need of people to continue their families, which is transformed by social conditions and culture. By sanctioning a marriage, society undertakes the tasks of preserving it and imposes on the people who have entered into it responsibility for ensuring the material care and upbringing of their children and consequently the future of the family.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Marriage regulates and realizes the natural need of people to continue their families, which is transformed by social conditions and culture. By sanctioning a marriage, society undertakes the tasks of preserving it and imposes on the people who have entered into it responsibility for ensuring the material care and upbringing of their children and consequently the future of the family.

Or we could just, say, provide parenting classes.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Don't be such a blithering idiot. The child would of course be allowed to make their decision without pressure from either parent.
What I described is not "pressure," but rather something more akin to bribery. And how exactly can you possibly stop it from happening, other than by cutting off the children from all communication with their parents?


It's not as if they're being asked what the square root of 22.453 is.
No, they're being asked what their long term interests are. They're being asked to make a decision that will very likely determine the course of their entire lives. And most children are simply not capable of making that decision. I know I wasn't, at the age of 10 or lower.

And that's another thing: By "children" I don't mean teenagers. I mean children. 7 years old, or 4 years old, or even 1 year old.


Quite apart from the fact that kids aren't as stupid or shallow as you make them out to be.
Yes they are, at the ages that I'm thinking about. Are you seriously telling me that you were capable of making informed long term decisions about your life at the age of 3 or 4? If you asked me to pick a parent at that age, I know for a fact that I would have picked the one which offered me the most toys.

Or for that matter, what about kids 2 years old and lower? What about those who haven't even learned to speak yet?

[ernie]

Assertion requires proof. When I was 13 I wanted to leave school (I would expect that this is a normal event for most teenagers). If I had been allowed to then I would most likely be in a much worse position now.
First, you don't know that it's a "normal event" for teenagers (neither do I). Neither I nor any of my friends wanted to leave school when I was young. Second, how do you know that you would to be in a much worse position? Even if that were true, it's mostly true because we are living in a capitalist society. Which brings me to my next point.

I thought we were talking what would happen in a classless society. If so, then all the economic burdens that exist in capitalism will not be a factor, and shouldn't be considered in this discussion.


Also, I think it really is unfair to place such responsibility on a child on making such a decision. My parents divorced when I was fairly young - I didn't know what over, I thought that I might have something to do with it - can you imagine the pressure of making a child at that point chose between a parent? I don't think children should have to suffer because of parent's mistakes.
And if they suffer from the parents' decision? All I am saying is that, in a complex matter like this, the person in the best position to make the call is the child.


Then we would both agree. But the point I was addressing to this individual is that this is not how marriages work today.
It is how a lot of relationships work today. The trend seems to be that exclusive sexual rights are a thing of the past. And why shouldn't they? They were invented in a backwards time for reactionary reasons.


My point was that you speak for yourself and no one else; and that is what communists should recognize; that no relationship form has superiority over another, that it should indeed be a matter of personal preference. This may include monogamy, this may include all sorts of other freaky stuff.
Fair enough. It is my opinion that single-partner-with-exclusive-sexual-rights type of relationships are silly. If people want to engage in them, I won't stop them. I think they are a thing of the past, though.


Its a bigger question of 'where they live.' Its a question of whether the parent is capable of providing three meals a day to the child
Irrelevant. Under communism, nobody will have to worry about that.


a question of whether the parent is going to nurture and love the child, a question of whether the parent is going to abuse the child
The child is the only person who knows the answers to these two questions. Surely some stranger isn't in a position to say who will love the child most.


and many more questions which should demand more than one head.
Fine, advise the child all you want. All I am saying is that it is the child who should make the final decision. You want to let someone else decide for them, even if it is against their will. I don't know why...

[ernie]

Yes they are, at the ages that I'm thinking about.
No, they aren't. I don't understand why so many people want to effectively control children on the grounds that "they don't know better".


If you asked me to pick a parent at that age, I know for a fact that I would have picked the one which offered me the most toys.
You would have picked the parent that made you the happiest. What is wrong with that? Nothing, unless you feel that children need to be controlled.


Or for that matter, what about kids 2 years old and lower? What about those who haven't even learned to speak yet?
Nice distraction. Evidently, if a child isn't capable of communicating a decision, then they don't get to decide. Otherwise, it's their decision.

[ashaman1324]

im totally lost in the would be beaurocracy of the current conversation.
its none of our business in other people's marriages.
i voted no.
while marriage is a bad idea, it's the couple(s) decision whether to go through with it, for whatever reason.

[Yazman]

I don't understand why anybody would want marriage banned. If you don't want to get married, then just don't get married.

[Dimentio]

Why the hell should it be anyone else's business? Don't like marriage? Then don't have one! It's as simple as that!

I'm in agreement. Why is that so important?

[JorgeLobo]

Ulster - thanks so much for your insight!!

I know you invested a lot of time energy and intellect in your cogent and deep comments. Under science and environment is a discussion on transgender condition and sexual reassignment surgery. Perhaps you might join in that discussion as it appears you certainly have a passion for things homosexual.

[Charles Xavier]

I think those who say marriage should banned are either male chauvinists who want to sleep with everyone. or are people for whatever physical ugliness or personality loserness will never get married with few exceptions.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I don't know where the whole child thing popped up from. I would hope that in an anarchist society children would not have the option to make their own decisions with the same impact as adults. Fuck all this noise about in a "truely free society" children would be completely free. That is just plain horseshit. Children are the product of their parents and thus the parents should have the right to be the biggest nazi's to the child until that being is of an age where they are able to make mature decisions. Of course with the exception of abuse or killing.

Fuck me if I am going to let someone tell me how to raise my kid or tell me that the kid will make my decisions.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ulster - thanks so much for your insight!!

I know you invested a lot of time energy and intellect in your cogent and deep comments. Under science and environment is a discussion on transgender condition and sexual reassignment surgery. Perhaps you might join in that discussion as it appears you certainly have a passion for things homosexual.

load the bancannon.

Grab your coat asshole, and watch your landing on the way out.

[JorgeLobo]

I understand it's easier if your discussion "opponents" are banned as it relieves you of the the need to respond with intelligence. My suggestion is that you'll grow in your thinking if you engage and not hide behind moderators.

With help, you may be able to communicate with thought and abandon the ad hominems and hopeful, childish threats.

Hope this helps.

[Dr Mindbender]

I understand it's easier if your discussion "opponents" are banned as it relieves you of the the need to respond with intelligence. My suggestion is that you'll grow in your thinking if you engage and not hide behind moderators.
.

No it's because that homophobia and other prejudices already thrive on other parts of the internet.

Theres no reason why revleft should also be a safe haven for these reactionary mindsets.

Revleft is not I repeat NOT a microcosm of a proposed revolutionary society, it is a place where progressives can debate in a progressive context without prejudiced trolls. If you want to persist engaging in these views i suggest you go elsewhere, you will not find anyone here will entertain you.

[JorgeLobo]

"thrive on"? This implies utilization or sustenance from - think you meant thrive in.

Those are not my views but if they were it appears you are very entertaining.

Can you invest some thought to your point (and state it more clearly)? The continued ad hominem says much about your limitations but reveals nothing of your argument.

[Dr Mindbender]

the philosophical consensus on this forum is that homosexuals, and other groups should not have lesser or greater rights than another. Nor should you make any attempt to belittle, ridicule or trivialise this principle.

This also extends to full, unconditional rights to sexual reasignment.

[JorgeLobo]

I've made no proposal nor would that they have lesser or greater rights.

Did you mean sexual reassignment (vs. the misspelled reasignment)? I've not argued against such rights - please feel free to pursue yours.

Please remember - the word is taze not tase.

[Dr Mindbender]

I've made no proposal nor would that they have lesser or greater rights.

You seem to think however their efforts for equal rights is a trivial matter-


Ban marriage ? Then what would the gay activists have to whine about?




Did you mean sexual reassignment (vs. the misspelled reasignment)? I've not argued against such rights - please feel free to pursue yours.
You seem to think that lost profits on the part of medical companies are a greater evil than people not having access to means of alleviating their gender identity crisis.




Please remember - the word is taze not tase.
I've decided to leave my custom id the way it is just to spite you.

[ernie]

Fuck all this noise about in a "truely free society" children would be completely free. That is just plain horseshit.
Yeah, all this "revolution" and "liberation of the working class" and "freedom" is bullshit. What are we thinking?


Children are the product of their parents and thus the parents should have the right to be the biggest nazi's to the child until that being is of an age where they are able to make mature decisions.
The product of their parents? Reactionary babble.


Of course with the exception of abuse or killing.
Why? If children are "the product" of their parents, it follows that they have the right to abuse them. It's hard to be consistent when you base your arguments on the idea that children are "the product" of their parents, isn't it?


Fuck me if I am going to let someone tell me how to raise my kid or tell me that the kid will make my decisions.
I really doubt a revolutionary society will stand for people being "the biggest nazi's" to children. They won't tell you how to "raise" them, just make sure you never get near them.

[Charles Xavier]

Yeah, all this "revolution" and "liberation of the working class" and "freedom" is bullshit. What are we thinking?


The product of their parents? Reactionary babble.


Why? If children are "the product" of their parents, it follows that they have the right to abuse them. It's hard to be consistent when you base your arguments on the idea that children are "the product" of their parents, isn't it?


I really doubt a revolutionary society will stand for people being "the biggest nazi's" to children. They won't tell you how to "raise" them, just make sure you never get near them.

You lost the game of life. You fail at life.

[Hyacinth]

Saying that marriage should be banned isn't saying that we should somehow go around stopping people from entering into long-term monogamous relationships, rather only that such relationships shouldn't receive official sanction by either the state or society, in the sense of being based on a contract. If you want to live together, get your names changed, have a celebration of your commitment, etc. go ahead and knock yourself out, but there is no reason why any of this should involve a contract.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Indeed: such contract is the legal basis of the economic family.

[Dr Mindbender]

Saying that marriage should be banned isn't saying that we should somehow go around stopping people from entering into long-term monogamous relationships, rather only that such relationships shouldn't receive official sanction by either the state or society, in the sense of being based on a contract. If you want to live together, get your names changed, have a celebration of your commitment, etc. go ahead and knock yourself out, but there is no reason why any of this should involve a contract.
in cases of asset ownership and child custody ambiguity post divorce, i think the advantages of a contract and legal protection therein quickly become obvious.

again however, a legal contract doesnt suit everyone so i see no reason to alter the status quo regarding marriage except to afford full and equal marriage rights to homosexuals.

[Melbourne Lefty]

I voted yes because I dislike marrige, but it depends on what you mean by 'Ban'.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Yeah, all this "revolution" and "liberation of the working class" and "freedom" is bullshit. What are we thinking?


The product of their parents? Reactionary babble.


Why? If children are "the product" of their parents, it follows that they have the right to abuse them. It's hard to be consistent when you base your arguments on the idea that children are "the product" of their parents, isn't it?


I really doubt a revolutionary society will stand for people being "the biggest nazi's" to children. They won't tell you how to "raise" them, just make sure you never get near them.
Anarchism and the end product of communism has never been about total freedom. It is not against all forms of authority. It allows justified authoritarian relationships like that between a child and it's parents.

Product of it's parents.... reactionary? I just said exactly what the child is... A child is made when the father fertilizes the mothers egg. The child is the offspring or product* of the parents.

*Product - Anything produced by human or mechanical effort or by a natural process.

[ernie]

Anarchism and the end product of communism has never been about total freedom. It is not against all forms of authority. It allows justified authoritarian relationships like that between a child and it's parents.
I agree that there are some forms of authority which are justified. I say "total freedom" in this context. I fail to see how a parent's authority over a child is justified. The most widely-used justification for having authority over one's children -- economic responsibility -- cannot be used in a anarcho-communist society.


Product of it's parents.... reactionary? I just said exactly what the child is... A child is made when the father fertilizes the mothers egg. The child is the offspring or product* of the parents.

*Product - Anything produced by human or mechanical effort or by a natural process.
The rest of your post (i.e., that a parent can be an authoritative fascist to their kids) only makes sense if what meant by product was something like property. That's what I thought you were saying, and that, to me, is a reactionary position.

But, fine, I misunderstood what you meant by product. Still, how does the fact that a child is the product -- by the definition above -- of its parents justify their authority over him/her?

[Sendo]

giving special rights to people based on marriage is silly. The only reason I'd say let gays marry is because they're entitled to equal benefits/protections/status/whatever.

The ceremony is fine, bu that legal stuff, oy. But then you have to, cause we live under capitalism and it's not safe for a woman to sacrifice her work life unless she gets compensation. If there's a split up and no marriage, it's really hard to legally demand much more than child support.

[Elway]

I like Colorado's legal definition of a product, which is generally something natural that has had a human process alter it is some way, or variations on same.

[Bilan]

What tripe. Of course it shouldn't. Don't want one, don't have one.

[Hyacinth]

in cases of asset ownership and child custody ambiguity post divorce, i think the advantages of a contract and legal protection therein quickly become obvious.

again however, a legal contract doesnt suit everyone so i see no reason to alter the status quo regarding marriage except to afford full and equal marriage rights to homosexuals.
The question of extending marriage to homosexual couples is simply a matter of the consistent application of bourgeois rights. But presumably what we're concerned with is a communist society. In such a context, I don't think that parents should have custody rights over children; children aren't property. They should be able to chose which parents they want to live with, if either. Similarly, I doubt asset ownership would be an issue in communist society; if every members of society has their economic well-being guaranteed I don't think there would be any assets that need division. Perhaps things of sentimental value, but frankly I don't see how bringing the division of sentimental objects into the legal sphere really helps to resolve the issue.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I agree that there are some forms of authority which are justified. I say "total freedom" in this context. I fail to see how a parent's authority over a child is justified. The most widely-used justification for having authority over one's children -- economic responsibility -- cannot be used in a anarcho-communist society.


The rest of your post (i.e., that a parent can be an authoritative fascist to their kids) only makes sense if what meant by product was something like property. That's what I thought you were saying, and that, to me, is a reactionary position.

But, fine, I misunderstood what you meant by product. Still, how does the fact that a child is the product -- by the definition above -- of its parents justify their authority over him/her?
The justification comes from the fact that children are not smart enough, nor experienced enough to make big decisions. There lies the justification. A parent letting the child make all of the decisions could put the child and others around the child in danger because of the child's ignorance and lack of direction.

How old are you? If you don't mind.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You would have picked the parent that made you the happiest. What is wrong with that?
The fact that short-term happiness can lead to a great deal of long-term suffering, and a child's understanding of the world is not sufficiently developed to take into account long-term consequences.

I would have picked the parent that made me happiest over a period of a few weeks or months. The correct decision is to pick the parent that will teach you how to live a happy life.

[Demogorgon]

Besides, I expect future revolutionaries to be way past all this monogamy nonsense.

How? Shall we abolish love? One of the wonderful things about being in love is that it actually makes you want to be monogamous.

To be sure, monogamy does not suit everybody, we all have our own preferences, but the notion that we will all force ourselves into sexual behaviour that does not suit us is as bad as the notion that we should all be monogamous.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Banning marriage is insane; too much was sacrificed to win marriage in Massachusets and to ban it would be a set back on our entire community. We've just come too far.

[ernie]

The justification comes from the fact that children are not smart enough, nor experienced enough to make big decisions. There lies the justification. A parent letting the child make all of the decisions could put the child and others around the child in danger because of the child's ignorance and lack of direction.
It's not like we're going to let children out into the jungle by themselves. The parents are there to guide them and make sure their decisions are informed.

Another problem is that the only reason parents can control children is because they are physically stronger than them. When you order children what to do, it usually comes with the threat of violence. You wouldn't try to force another adult (especially a bigger one) to do anything, even if you thought they were "not smart enough" to make their own decisions. They could kick your ass!

It seems to me that controlling children simply because one is bigger than them is not revolutionary, regardless of good intentions. We should be teaching children to live their lives freely, without fear of violent retribution.


How old are you? If you don't mind.
I'm an adult.

I fail to see how this is relevant, though. Perhaps you wanted to dismiss what I am saying on the grounds that I am a child and, therefore, not smart enough to discuss this.

[ernie]

How? Shall we abolish love? One of the wonderful things about being in love is that it actually makes you want to be monogamous.

To be sure, monogamy does not suit everybody, we all have our own preferences, but the notion that we will all force ourselves into sexual behaviour that does not suit us is as bad as the notion that we should all be monogamous.
I said I expect it to happen. In other words, I think that relationships where the participants promise to have sex only with each other -- that is, traditional relationships -- are decreasing in numbers. Or, put another way, relationships where individuals are "allowed" to have sex with others are becoming more and more "popular". I believe this is happening naturally; no need to abolish anything.

Also, being in love does not make you want to be (sexually) monogamous. I mean, maybe it makes you want to, but I hardly think that is a general rule. From my experience, love makes one want to spend a lot of time with the object of one's love, but it doesn't make one want to stop having sex with other people.

[ernie]

The fact that short-term happiness can lead to a great deal of long-term suffering, and a child's understanding of the world is not sufficiently developed to take into account long-term consequences.
Example? (Remember that we are talking about a communist society.)

[Demogorgon]

Also, being in love does not make you want to be (sexually) monogamous. I mean, maybe it makes you want to, but I hardly think that is a general rule. From my experience, love makes one want to spend a lot of time with the object of one's love, but it doesn't make one want to stop having sex with other people.
For the majority of people it does, that is why most people are monogamous once they find a long term partner.

Example? (Remember that we are talking about a communist society.)
Do you think the psychological development of children to change under a Communist society?

[Dr Mindbender]

The question of extending marriage to homosexual couples is simply a matter of the consistent application of bourgeois rights.
I disagree, i think the purpose of marriage serves class-neutral interests (the reasons i've already given).


But presumably what we're concerned with is a communist society. In such a context, I don't think that parents should have custody rights over children; children aren't property.
Quite, i agree which is why i purposely differentiated between assets and children.


They should be able to chose which parents they want to live with, if either.
To an extent yes, but until they are of a responsible age i dont think it is appropriate to afford children such freedom of choice regarding life altering decisions like that. As i said to Noxion, Children are seldomly able to make decisions that serve their long term interests. I could take your logic to the extreme and say that children should also be able to drive, have sex, consume alcohol or vote. Why not? Surely otherwise it would undermine their autonomy, or do you concede the inconsistency of your argument?


Similarly, I doubt asset ownership would be an issue in communist society; if every members of society has their economic well-being guaranteed I don't think there would be any assets that need division.
what about works of creativity? (paintings and sculptings and the like) I could see a case of legal ambiguity there, one person could be trying to claim it was a gift while the other contests this.


Perhaps things of sentimental value, but frankly I don't see how bringing the division of sentimental objects into the legal sphere really helps to resolve the issue.
Because it's a big issue that needs dealt with, and not swept under the carpet. Frankly i would hate to live in a society with a phillistine attitude towards irreplacable works and items.

[Charles Xavier]

The family is the core of a socialist society.

[Dr Mindbender]

The family is the core of a socialist society.
:confused:

I thought that was a conservative soundbite, not ours.

[MarxSchmarx]

The assertion that marriage (hetero or otherwise) exists to assist in child-rearing is weak.

Child rearing is one among many complications of bourgeois society that are conveniently addressed by marriage. Another such complication is inheritance, taxation, etc... Marriage is shorthand in bourgeois society for a host of issues, child-rearing among them.

As regards child-rearing specifically, the assertion that each parent has a right to mold a child in their image denies the individuality and self-realization of the child. Confusing this to mean children can do whatever they want is to erect a straw man. Even today, parental activity is circumscribed within social norms (compulsory education, prohibitions against corporal punishment, etc...). It is ridiculous to assume parents can be allowed to raise their children willy-nilly, and marriage provides no more sanction to this fantasy.

There can be no sensible, socialist defense of marriage. It is an institution born of making property relations out of human beings and has no more place in a socialist future than racism or absentee landlords. At best, we can, as Hyacinth notes, extent bourgeois rights consistently.

[Hyacinth]

To an extent yes, but until they are of a responsible age i dont think it is appropriate to afford children such freedom of choice regarding life altering decisions like that. As i said to Noxion, Children are seldomly able to make decisions that serve their long term interests. I could take your logic to the extreme and say that children should also be able to drive, have sex, consume alcohol or vote. Why not? Surely otherwise it would undermine their autonomy, or do you concede the inconsistency of your argument?
The only tension that exists is in the straw man argument that you've offered. I never claimed, nor implied, that children are fully autonomous; nor did I mention anything about sex, driving, etc. I said that they should be able to choose which parent, if either, they wish to live with. While they might not be fully autonomous autonomy isn't something that magically occurs when you reach a certain age, it is a gradual process. And while a 1 year old might not be autonomous in any respect, a 5 year old is more autonomous than that, and a 10 year old more autonomous than the 5 year old, and so on.

In a communist society presumably the economic well-being of all members will be guaranteed, children included. Children, unlike today, will not be dependent upon their biological parents for financial support. But, recognizing the need for some mentorship and supervision, I do believe children (at what exactly age I'm not sure) should be able to choose their guardian, someone to act as their mentor. Or perhaps, for children who don't feel like living at home, we could organize communes for them to live in with other children, and where there would also be adult supervision. As it is today children already spend most of their time at school, so it wouldn't be so radical a change. The varities in which upbringing can be organized are numerous, you lack immagination if you cannot concieve of anything other than the traditional family unit.

And, as for voting, I absolutely think children should be able to vote, not necessarily for everything, but having children involved in decisions which affect them, in say the context of school, for example, both respects them as persons, but more fundamentally teaches them democratic values and prepares them to become members of society. I think you're giving children too little credit.

Again, I'm not implying that all of this is applicable to all children, there is a vast diversity among the intellectual development among different ages.


what about works of creativity? (paintings and sculptings and the like) I could see a case of legal ambiguity there, one person could be trying to claim it was a gift while the other contests this.
How is the distribution of such things in any way going to be helped by a marriage contract which couldn't be resolved without one? Frankly, I think that the best way to resolve such a dispute is to create a copy. Both parties get one, problem solved!


Because it's a big issue that needs dealt with, and not swept under the carpet. Frankly i would hate to live in a society with a phillistine attitude towards irreplacable works and items.
I doubt any item is irreplacable. If we cannot now, we could in the future, easily create perfect copies. I don't see why every person shouldn't, for instance, have a copy of the Mona Lisa in their living room (if that is what their taste in art is like).

But that aside, you haven't told me how marriage is suppose to help resolve such disputes? You've merely asserted that it somehow [magically?] does?

[Enragé]

I think marriages should be banned. I find it ludicrous that people pledge their lives to each other and once you don't lie what's going on you can pack your shit and leave. Plus you either lose your wages or you're getting someone elses. It's nuts.

you're pretty authoritarian for an anarchist.

as to the question, no, derr. If people want to get married, let them.

[spartan]

If two people want to dedicate the rest of their lives to each other and wish for a ceremony to celebrate this dedication of their love then no one has a right to stop them from doing that.

So no marriage shouldn't be banned.

[Hyacinth]

If two people want to dedicate the rest of their lives to each other and wish for a ceremony to celebrate this dedication of their love then no one has a right to stop them from doing that.

So no marriage shouldn't be banned.
That's not what's at issue. If two people want to dedicate their love to each other by throwing a backyard orgy that would be fine as well. The question at hand is over the marriage contract.

[zimmerwald1915]

Marriage isn't necessarily a contract. It takes the legal form of a contract only in capitalist society, when, due to the dominance of the exchange relation in human life and consciousness, everything takes the form of a contract. A society of freely associated producers would, I imagine, leave such decisions up to the individuals involved.

[Charles Xavier]

My wife would be pissed if I was against marriage.

[Hyacinth]

Marriage isn't necessarily a contract. It takes the legal form of a contract only in capitalist society, when, due to the dominance of the exchange relation in human life and consciousness, everything takes the form of a contract. A society of freely associated producers would, I imagine, leave such decisions up to the individuals involved.
Perhaps the poll was ambiguous on this point, but the OP certainly was not. What is in question is the marriage contract. How people choose to associate in a communist society will be no one's business other than their own. If they want to 'play house' that's fine, there simply shouldn't be any contractual relations regulating such a relationship.

[Junius]

You do know, that you don't have to be married to, for example, receive an amount of compensation when you and your partner break up? If I live with someone for ten years, yet the property is in his name, split up with him, should I be entitled to...nothing? Do you think that is fair? It is all well and nice to talk about abolishing 'marriage' and 'contracts', but you cannot abolish something which serves an economic purpose of which the abolishment in our current society would create even more hardship, even if it appeases the sexual morals of leftists.


Originally posted by zimmerwald1915
It takes the legal form of a contract only in capitalist society, when, due to the dominance of the exchange relation in human life and consciousness, everything takes the form of a contract.Indeed.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The fact that short-term happiness can lead to a great deal of long-term suffering, and a child's understanding of the world is not sufficiently developed to take into account long-term consequences.Example? (Remember that we are talking about a communist society.)
Easy example: Anything and everything related to health. Most children would never want to be vaccinated or receive shots for any reason (I know I hated it). Many young children hate pills too. The vast majority of children would love to have a diet exclusively composed of candy. The dentist is the devil. And so on and so forth.

[Hyacinth]

You do know, that you don't have to be married to, for example, receive an amount of compensation when you and your partner break up? If I live with someone for ten years, yet the property is in his name, split up with him, should I be entitled to...nothing? Do you think that is fair? It is all well and nice to talk about abolishing 'marriage' and 'contracts', but you cannot abolish something which serves an economic purpose of which the abolishment in our current society would create even more hardship, even if it appeases the sexual morals of leftists.
That's the issue, no one here is suggesting that we abolish marriage under capitalism. The question is whether or not it should still exist under communism, at least in the form of contract.

[Junius]

That's the issue, no one here is suggesting that we abolish marriage under capitalism. The question is whether or not it should still exist under communism, at least in the form of contract.

It is not a question of should. This is pure utopianism; we don't set up dogmas on how a future society should run. We know that social forms decay once they become a fetter on economic production or they become superfluous to it. Marriage today serves a specific economic function. Only by the transformation of this economic function will anything change. Beyond that you are walking on clouds.

[Gleb]

I'm seriously quite disappointed that even 16 people are demanding an actual ban of marriage. Individual freedom has always been one of the major ideals of leftist ideology. We really have no need for nanny state watching over our shoulders watching what I'm doing and am I doing it right.

If state thinks that it's ok for it to control peoples' lives like that, then it's not my state. Simple and beautiful.

[Hyacinth]

It is not a question of should. This is pure utopianism; we don't set up dogmas on how a future society should run. We know that social forms decay once they become a fetter on economic production or they become superfluous to it. Marriage today serves a specific economic function. Only by the transformation of this economic function will anything change. Beyond that you are walking on clouds.
We can speculate as to what social relations will remain upon a chance in the mode of production, and asking whether marriage will remain, or whether it is desirable to maintain it, is a legitimate inquiry. The poll question, as I've admitted already, is ill phrased; marriage shouldn't be banned, not in the sense of we will have laws against it, but rather I don't think we should have any provisions establishing it either. Contractual marriage will go with the rest of the property relations of capitalism, and the existing family structure will be something that will wither with the flow of time, something that cannot survive under a different mode of production. What I'm surprised is how many members are so keen to defend a capitalist and patriarchal institution.

[ernie]

It is not a question of should. This is pure utopianism; we don't set up dogmas on how a future society should run. We know that social forms decay once they become a fetter on economic production or they become superfluous to it. Marriage today serves a specific economic function. Only by the transformation of this economic function will anything change. Beyond that you are walking on clouds.
I agree. In that case -- and as already pointed out -- the question in the poll doesn't make any sense. It should have been: will marriage exist in a communist society? As you said, the answer is no, for the reasons you and Hyacinth already exposed.


What I'm surprised is how many members are so keen to defend a capitalist and patriarchal institution.
It's not easy to see past the crap that we've been indoctrinated with since birth. Also, notice the correlation between arguing that marriage will exist and wanting to control children.

[ernie]

Easy example: Anything and everything related to health.
No.


Most children would never want to be vaccinated or receive shots for any reason (I know I hated it).
In this case you may be right, and, if vaccines are still administered through a needle 100 years from now, we might have to bargain with or even force very young children to have them. After the age of about six, I'm sure most children can be convinced through rational arguments.


Many young children hate pills too.
And that's why most medications for children come in syrup form.


The vast majority of children would love to have a diet exclusively composed of candy.
This a silly myth, as anyone who's been around children can tell you. Most children love a tasty meal; it's not hard to make a tasty meal also nutritious. Of course, saying "eat your damn lima beans!!" is easier.


The dentist is the devil.
They are evil! :D I never went to the dentist in my life...my teeth are fine.

[Junius]

We can speculate as to what social relations will remain upon a chance in the mode of production, and asking whether marriage will remain, or whether it is desirable to maintain it, is a legitimate inquiry

It is, but then I see comments like this:


What I'm surprised is how many members are so keen to defend a capitalist and patriarchal institution.

and I wonder whether you really grasp the nature of marriage. There is nothing inherently capitalist about marriage, nor anything inherently patriarchal about it. That it serves these functions today does not mean that it will tomorrow. It is rather like throwing out the baby with the water (or whatever the English saying is). It is perfectly conceivable for someone to agree to marry someone which doesn't involve the domination of a man over a woman, nor subject the marriage to economic purposes; i.e. it is perfectly fine for a marriage to just be about love. Indeed, a society which places all workers on equal grounds and removes economic coercion would mean that marriage would only be able to serve this function.

[ernie]

nor anything inherently patriarchal about it. That it serves these functions today does not mean that it will tomorrow.
That's debatable. It's not that marriage has been misused all this time; it was invented for patriarchal reasons, none of which have anything to do with love.

It's rather like saying that the police, as it works now, can serve different purposes later. It can't. The police was invented for a very specific purpose, and its design is meant to fulfill that purpose.


It is perfectly conceivable for someone to agree to marry someone which doesn't involve the domination of a man over a woman, nor subject the marriage to economic purposes; i.e. it is perfectly fine for a marriage to just be about love.
If marriage is seen as a contract whereby the participants agree not to engage in romantic or sexual relationships with anybody else, then it is reasonable to want to enforce the contract. Since, in general, men are physically stronger than women, they are in a better position to coerce their spouses into keeping their end of the deal.


Indeed, a society which places all workers on equal grounds and removes economic coercion would mean that marriage would only be able to serve this function.
If marriage is about two people living together because they love each other, then you are perfectly correct (and, if this is the case, why call it marriage?). If it is a contract, or even a promise, that the participants will not "see" anybody else, then it starts being problematical. I would be afraid that the material conditions for patriarchy would arise.

[Junius]

ernie
That's debatable. It's not that marriage has been misused all this time; it was invented for patriarchal reasons, none of which have anything to do with love.I don't think it was suddenly 'invented' for patriarchal reasons. I see things like a dowry to serve an economic purpose. Economic conditions -> social conditions. Not the other way around.


ernie
It's rather like saying that the police, as it works now, can serve different purposes later. It can't.1. The police exist to serve the ruling class in defending private property.

2. Since private property will not exist, then the chief function of police will also not exist.

3. The difference is, that there is nothing antithetical about marriage in a communist society. There is a fundamental contradiction between the role of the police today and the lack of private property tomorrow. This doesn't prevent someone from declaring their love for someone else and getting a piece of paper to prove it.


ernie
If marriage is seen as a contract whereby the participants agree not to engage in romantic or sexual relationships with anybody else, then it is reasonable to want to enforce the contract.There is nothing about marriage which specifies that you can only have one sexual partner. So no, the 'reasonable' part doesn't follow. A happily married couple can have sex with other people, or whatever. What would be the effect of breaking this contract? Your partner would be pissed off.


ernie
Since, in general, men are physically stronger than women, they are in a better position to coerce their spouses into keeping their end of the deal.What?! Patriarchy doesn't exist simply because men are stronger. Women serve a purpose in the running of the house, raising of children and so forth. They don't serve these purposes because men are stronger, they serve them because of economic relations.

Besides, I thought that we were talking about a communist society? Surely if it can't even prevent such simple abuses of power...?


ernie
If marriage is about two people living together because they love each other, then you are perfectly correct (and, if this is the case, why call it marriage?).People like the cultural significance that they have found their 'true love' and it is a sign of infatuation with someone. Would it serve the same purpose of marriage today? No. So what?


ernie
If it is a contract, or even a promise, that the participants will not "see" anybody else, then it starts being problematical. I would be afraid that the material conditions for patriarchy would arise.Sigh. Patriarchy doesn't fall from the sky. If we accept that in a communist society all workers are equal, hence no one has economic coerciveness over another, then how could it suddenly occur that men start dominating women? What would be the purpose of this relation? Simply because men are stronger? Sorry, but that ain't a material condition.

[bcbm]

That's debatable. It's not that marriage has been misused all this time; it was invented for patriarchal reasons, none of which have anything to do with love.

If you want to go this route it would be more accurate to argue that marriage was invented to protect property not patriarchy and even then that argument would only work in sedentary, agricultural societies. Patriarchal relations may have become associated with it in many cases, but it is simply not true across the board.

[Hyacinth]

...and I wonder whether you really grasp the nature of marriage. There is nothing inherently capitalist about marriage, nor anything inherently patriarchal about it. That it serves these functions today does not mean that it will tomorrow. It is rather like throwing out the baby with the water (or whatever the English saying is). It is perfectly conceivable for someone to agree to marry someone which doesn't involve the domination of a man over a woman, nor subject the marriage to economic purposes; i.e. it is perfectly fine for a marriage to just be about love. Indeed, a society which places all workers on equal grounds and removes economic coercion would mean that marriage would only be able to serve this function.
The further into this debate we get the more I think our disagreement is merely verbal, and not substantive. But, to clarify that, let me ask, (a) do you think that the marriage contract will exist under communism, and (b) is the marriage contract desirable?

As I see it, the answer to both is no. Contracts are fundamentally about property, and if not so directly, they at least reduce human interaction to property relations. I don't see what that has to do with love whatsoever. I don't care if people want to become committed toward one another in a ceremony, call one another "husband", "wife", "spouse", "life partner", etc. I just don't see what place a marriage contract would have in a communist (re: civilized) society.

When I say marriage I mean the marriage contract, as it exists today, and as it has existed historically. If that is dissolved then I don't see how marriage will remain, unless you want to call the commitment people make to one another even without contract 'marriage', fine, I have no problem with that, but we're not talking about the same thing.

[ernie]

I don't think it was suddenly 'invented' for patriarchal reasons. I see things like a dowry to serve an economic purpose. Economic conditions -> social conditions. Not the other way around.
Are you saying that patriarchy and sexism came into existence because of marriage?


1. The police exist to serve the ruling class in defending private property.

2. Since private property will not exist, then the chief function of police will also not exist.
Well, if the chief function of the police doesn't exist, surely the police itself will stop existing. Whatever organization fights crime under communism will not be a police force, since the purpose of the police will no longer require fulfilling. The same goes for marriage.



3. The difference is, that there is nothing antithetical about marriage in a communist society. There is a fundamental contradiction between the role of the police today and the lack of private property tomorrow. This doesn't prevent someone from declaring their love for someone else and getting a piece of paper to prove it.
Fine. But it won't be marriage. That's all I'm saying.


There is nothing about marriage which specifies that you can only have one sexual partner.
As it exists today, yes there is. The fundamental idea behind marriage as a social construct is exactly that.


What?! Patriarchy doesn't exist simply because men are stronger.
Then how come there aren't any matriarchal societies? Historically, men started to dominate human societies because they are physically stronger.


People like the cultural significance that they have found their 'true love' and it is a sign of infatuation with someone. Would it serve the same purpose of marriage today? No. So what?
Nothing, just that it wouldn't be marriage. The question of the poll, as I understood it, whether or not marriage should (or would) exist in communism. It never said anything about love or infatuation or people living together.

I think we agree that marriage as it exists today will not exist under communism. It's a matter of what we call two people living together in a communist society.

On the issue whether or not marriage is inherently patriarchal, all I can say is that marriage was created under certain material conditions, conditions which will not exist under communism. That leads me to believe that there will be no such thing as marriage in a revolutionary society.

[ernie]

If you want to go this route it would be more accurate to argue that marriage was invented to protect property not patriarchy and even then that argument would only work in sedentary, agricultural societies. Patriarchal relations may have become associated with it in many cases, but it is simply not true across the board.
But was property not owned exclusively by males when the concept of marriage was invented?

[RedSabine]

Marriage is a good thing, in my mind. It is the best method to foster a commited and nonexploitative reltionship. It is the healthiest manner for humans to be raised in, I beleive. Comitment is key in romantic relationships, and a legal biding of people is the way to maintain that.

*waiting for the backlash...*

[Chicano Shamrock]

Marriage is a good thing, in my mind. It is the best method to foster a commited and nonexploitative reltionship. It is the healthiest manner for humans to be raised in, I beleive. Comitment is key in romantic relationships, and a legal biding of people is the way to maintain that.

*waiting for the backlash...*
If legal binding is the center of your relationship that is a very sad life to live...

[RedSabine]

that's not what I was saying... I just mean that it, if not an abused system, helps to cultivate commited and non-exploitative relationships.

And that doesn't mean that you necesarily need some designated authority to deem you now married, but an agreement between two parties, private or public, that they both agree to love only eachother... and truely love, that way sex is not being exploited.

[bcbm]

But was property not owned exclusively by males when the concept of marriage was invented?

Well, given that marriage pre-dates the idea of property in many societies, I would say no. Once property had been invented it varies from area to area whether women could own it or not. Regardless, marriage was more about social standing and keeping or expanding current holdings than anything else.

[Hyacinth]

Well, given that marriage pre-dates the idea of property in many societies, I would say no. Once property had been invented it varies from area to area whether women could own it or not. Regardless, marriage was more about social standing and keeping or expanding current holdings than anything else.
I'm actually curious if you can back up that claim, that marriage predates property? My knowledge of anthropology is limited in this area.

[PostAnarchy]

Voted no silly question

[PostAnarchy]

Addendum" Those who would openly and expressly forbid opportunity for others to get married if they freely choose to do so is reacting in a highly authoritarian manner IMO

[ev]

Who the fuck voted yes?
Is this being argued from a legal/legislation standpoint about the pros and cons of marriage or do people want to just ban the ceremony of marriage?

[wigsa]

The suggestion that marriage should be banned is a ludicrous proposition in its entirety.It has very little to do,at least in heterosexual terms,with claiming that a reliationship is not as real if not represented by marriage.

The issue in question is loyalty,the promise to care for your partner,to love him/her for the rest of your life,to treat him/her with utmost respect,to protect him/her from harm at all costs.Basically,the contract of marriage is the promise that the life of your partner is worth as much to you as your own.

Marriage is a terrific thing.How anyone could suggest abolishing it is truly ridiculous.Anyone that thinks it is simply a matter of having the government recognise your relationship is a very narrow minded individual.

The one thing I would change regarding the contract of marriage would be the requirement for all couples to agree on a prenup before the marriage takes place.I think the amount of messy,gold-diggery divorces,which are growing in number all the time,is a major problem.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, I accidentally voted Yes. Could an admin please change my vote to No? Thank you.

Marriage should not be banned. If people want a religious ceremony declaring them partners under the eyes of God then let them have it. The point here is that marriage ought not be supported by the state.

- August

[scarletghoul]

I thought this thread was a joke.

Theres no reason to ban marriages. If you feel it undermines non-married couples then the government policies regarding this should be changed. But marriage itself is a cultural tradition that many people enjoy and involves delicious cake so to ban it would be unenforcable (without draconian measures) and lame. As long as it is concentful it doesnt hurt anyone. only the laws around marriage do

[Delirium]

Banned by who? By what authority?

[Rise Against]

Why the hell should it be anyone else's business? Don't like marriage? Then don't have one! It's as simple as that!

Absolutely true. If you don't like the idea of a binding contract to someone, don't sign the contract. It's as simple as that.
Marriage, in a sense, is just enshrined love; Just as laws are enshrined values. There is nothing wrong with two people wanting their names put next to each other on a record. That's all marriage is in my opinion.

[Yazman]

I seriously can't believe this thread is still going! Get a grip, its none of your fucking business if people want to get married or if somebody wants to be monogamous! I hate these anti-monogamy crusaders. If you don't like monogamous relationships then you won't be required to have one!

This thread really does seem like a joke, Cher_Guevara is right.

[Glorious Union]

Federally recognised marriages should not exist, but religious cerimonies and ritual marital bonds should still exist IMO.

[political_animal]

No, marriage shouldn't be banned - particularly under the current system. Personally I find marriage a ridiculous and outdated institution which has been used over the centuries as a way to force women in to partnership with men - arranged marriages/forcing pregnant women to get married. It is so wrapped up in the politics of keeping women oppressed that it surely can't be respected can it?

However, as we slowly move to reduce the oppression of women, there beomes less of a reason to be against the institution and more accepting of it being personal choice.

As others have noted though, post-revolution it would be a redundant procedure.

[Inner Logic]

Interestingly enough, I believe that marriage (or some other 'pact' to remain sexually exclusive) could be used to equalize the reproductive potential of men and women (as men have exponentially higher reproductive potential due to their biology).

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Being an Anarchist I cannot advocate the banning of anything however I do think that, as shown in the Spanish Civil War that with a post-hierarchial society will come the liberation of women and Marriage, a hierarchial, patriarchal idea will be obsolete.

[bobroberts]

Nobody should have the power to ban other people from entering into consensual relationships or arrangements with other people.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Nobody should have the power to ban other people from entering into consensual relationships or arrangements with other people.

Yes but I think in Anarchism the need for a contract to confirm this relationship will not be needed.