Results 1 to 20 of 121
Marriage
It seems that some leftists are opposed to the institution of marriage. Why?
2+2=4
Because it is mostly a religious thing maybe?And the fact that most leftists are atheists probably.
Beside why marry, and have to get threw bureaucracy etc, if people are true so much love that want to be together, they can be without been married..No one said to be a couple you need to be married.
OMONOIA
ANARCHO
COMMUNISM
You're never over
It also has to do with it's patriarchal traditions but i feel there are feminists on this board who could explain it alot better than i ever could.
KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACERKILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACERKILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER KILLFACER
I could see that--but if people WANT to get married--they should have that option.
Wait, when i said they shouldnt?
You're never over
Didn't say you--but I've read things by other Communists on RevLeft that seem to make the assertion that the monogamous man/woman arangement should be a thing of the past and that kids should be raised seperated from their parents in dormatories.Wait, when i said they shouldnt?
Last edited by Bud Struggle; 20th August 2009 at 01:46.
I don't know how much any one individuals can speak on the issue, obviously there are quite a large number of what I refer to as headbangers to describe the extent of, what I view as, there madness.
My view is that marriage should be a legal agreement (free from State and Religious interference) for those who wish to engage in it. Some more extreme Leftists obviously want to smash every social tradition including the whole idea of "the family", that's there prerogative and I hope that they remain in the minority.
I personally intend to get married as I still see marriage as the ultimate declaration of love for another human being and the willingness to share everything in life equally. Regardless of where it developed from, that's what it means to me and if you view that as oppression, then you might as well just drop all your liberation pretenses and call for the abolition of humanity.
"We believe in constitutional action in normal times; we believe in revolutionary action in exceptional times."~ James Connolly, from The Workers Republic, 4 December 1915.
[FONT=Arial Black]" Survival pending Revolution [/FONT][FONT=Arial Black]"[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]- Slogan of Black Panther Party's Free
Breakfast programme[/FONT]
Man alive, you are some writer.
if 2 people want to put on special clothes and go through a ceremony dedicating their lives to each other thats perfectly fine. But why the state is involved in it I have no idea, the state has no buisiness in marriage.
I'm not specifically opposed to marriage for other people, however it's important to critique it as a sexist, and many times gender/sexual preference specific (which can be seen in defining marriage as between "one man and one woman". I don't plan on getting married because of this, but things can change so I don't hold steadfastly to it.
I wish you'd explain it since no feminist seems to have responded yet.
2+2=4
go look in your rep board, you got probably a bunch of message from them, that would explain why your rep bar is red.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
There's not many female Communists.
Communism is a manly sport.
From my point of view, marriage has been a historical system of enforced patriarchy, backed up with religious bullshit. It isn't so long since the 'ideal' home was a man going out to work, a woman looking after the home and kids. Through this way of looking at the world, it would always be the case that the woman would merely be viewed as a baby producer and be there to support the man. Society is changing and we are seeing women being able to get away from the stereotype of the home-maker, but there is still a lot of residual belief in that the 'woman's place is in the home'.
It is also just plain weird, to dedicate your life to one person. How can you possibly know how you are going to feel in one year's time, 5 year's, 10, 50. The idea that you promise to love, honour and obey (obey?!!) until 'death do us part' is nonsense.
Further to this, it has also been a long-standing homophobic institution. The fact that marriage between a same sex couple was banned almost universally until very recently, surely points to the fact that the 'ideal' family unit, was being pushed on to us. Quite strange to think that no matter how much those that hold strong their belief in the institution of marriage, they wouldn't allow anything but one man, one woman to take part. Why? Because the purpose of marriage - just like the purpose of sex - was to produce children...the next generation of workers to run the capitalist machine. By removing the emphasis on male-female marriage, and marriage per se, it would threaten the entire future of capitalism. Let's not forget, go back even just one hundred years, and you will find that the average family was very large. The reason being that without a welfare state and with many kids dying during childhood, there was a need for a male-female marriage to produce numerous children, to support the parents later in life.
Of course, the church also had a vested interest in pushing the same line. Taking their lead, as they do, with very often literal readings from the bible, once the male-female notion of marriage was instituted (and let's not forget the sexist beginnings of females in the Bible) they continued to follow the line as the thing that believers should do. The idea that you can strip the religion out of a religious ceremony, simply by placing it outside the realm of a place of worship is nonsense.
The flip side to this, is the support for equality that should be given for those same-sex couples who wish to be treated equally under the present system. Anywhere that inequality and discrimination exists, such structures should be challenged. Marriage is one such obvious example. In this sense, I support the right for same-sex couples, not only to marry, but to enjoy exactly the same status as an opposite-sex couple. After all that is said though, I have no idea why a married couple should be treated more favourably than either single people or an unmarried couple. The only obvious reasoning could be the raising of children, but there doesn't need to be an emphasis on child-rearing within marriage. It is often the social structures that cause the incidence of 'problem-kids' raised outside of marriage, rather than as a result of the missing of marriage in their childhood experience. Any way, the raising of kids should be of utmost importance to society and shouldn't be left to an age-old discriminatory system such as marriage, to try and produce well-rounded adults.
Marriage is a sexist, homophobic institution and should be challenged, but once such reactionary discriminatory behaviour and beliefs are challenged and the status of marriage as being the 'ideal' situation is removed, then ultimately, people should be free to do as they wish. If someone wished to commit to someone for life, they should be free to do so, but they should not receive more benefits, or be held in higher esteem than someone who wishes to have numerous partners throughout their life, or someone who wished to have no-one sharing their life.
Challenging marriage may currently be about attacking age-old institutionalised discrimination, but it should also be about promoting equality for anyone, however they wished to live their life in regards sharing their life with partners.
Libertarian socialist...
Economic left/right -8.00
Social libertarian/authoritarian -7.28
-7.5 moral order
4 moral rules
Socially-orientated, materialist, internationalist, protectionist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite marxist
Marriage is ultimately a contract; it can be entirely secular (my parents and my uncle never went near a church when they got married), and the terms of the contract can favour one party or none. For these reasons I do not condemn the entire concept of marriage, only specific instances of such. The fact that marriage can be a secular contract is also why I support same-sex marriage and polygamy, provided the terms are acceptable to all involved. Likewise, there should be no restrictions on divorce as people should not be locked into contracts which they may find to be unacceptable.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
Maybe it's a separate issue--but the entire reason for a contract is that you are expected to fufill your obligations no matter what conditions may arise in the future. A contract is in a lot of ways a "gamble" that things will turn out well for you. But no matter how things actually turn out if you sign a contract--you are expected to meet the requirements of the contract.
If I have a contract to supply oil to you at price "X" for a year, but the cost of of oil to me goes up to "X+1" I still have to supply that oil to you under the contract for the year even if I loose money. That's just the way these things work.
There is no point to a marriage, or any other contract, if its terms can be ignored at will by either side and at no cost. If you don't want the responsibility, just shack up and tell each other you're in love -- for the time being.
Divorce does have a commercial counterpart, though: bankruptcy. Both allow you to get out of contracts. But bankruptcy has conditions and consequences. So did divorce at one time.
Nowadays ... not so much, though you do in my state have to at least swear that the marriage has become insupportable because of discord and conflict, which destroys the legitimate ends of the marriage relationship and there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation.
That's kind of like bankruptcy.
The marriage contract serves as security that a woman will not be left to raise a child on her own. Simply consider the vast number of women that are impregnated and left behind by adult males (I refuse to call them men) thus producing all the more children to be cared for by the state.There is no point to a marriage, or any other contract, if its terms can be ignored at will by either side and at no cost. If you don't want the responsibility, just shack up and tell each other you're in love -- for the time being
Divorce does have a commercial counterpart, though: bankruptcy. Both allow you to get out of contracts. But bankruptcy has conditions and consequences. So did divorce at one time.
Nowadays ... not so much, though you do in my state have to at least swear that the marriage has become insupportable because of discord and conflict, which destroys the legitimate ends of the marriage relationship and there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation.
That's kind of like bankruptcy.
That's the problem really, no one wishes to accept personal responsibility.
The entire situation as it exists today as concerns the breakdown of the traditional family and attacks against the institution of marriage attests to the greater bankruptcy - moral bankruptcy.
Last edited by Zolken; 31st August 2009 at 15:12.
Yes, there is a certain -- but precipitously declining -- social pressure on the male to love and support wife and child that comes with formal marriage, but legally he is just as obligated to support the child whether he marries the woman or not.
In the USA at least.
