Capitalist Temptations | Wanna get rid of those stupid ads? Us too! Help us to be non-dependent from corporate money again and sign up for a monthly donation now!

Thread: 11 years old and forced to marry the rapist who impregnated her

Results 1 to 12 of 12

  1. #1
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,519
    Rep Power 62

    Default 11 years old and forced to marry the rapist who impregnated her

    11 years old and forced to marry the rapist who impregnated her



    Make it illegal for children to be forced to marry in the U.S.

    Sign Now


    Chris,

    We like to believe that child marriage is something that only happens in other countries. But in fact, over 250,000 children were married between 2000 and 2010 in the United States and they were all legal! For example, Sherry Johnson in Florida was forced to marry her rapist, an elder in her church after he impregnated her at 11 years old.

    It's time we stand up for children in this country and ban child marriage completely. Sign the petition if you support legislation banning child marriage in the United States.

    Sherry didn't even know what marriage meant when she was forced to marry her rapist at 11 years old. But the police were investigating her case as the rape that it was and so the adults around her arranged this marriage to stop the investigation. Sherry's story is not unique. Many children are forced into marriage to cover up abuse and we have to stand up for them!

    Many states in the US don't even have an age restriction on marriage, which is why elementary school children are sometimes forced into marriage. They cannot get driver's licenses, sign leases, get a credit card, or consent to sex with an adult, but we allow them to get married? It's an insane fact that we must change.

    Because it is often a child's parents who arrange these marriages, the child brides don't feel they have a choice. That's why we, as a society, must stand up for them and ban child marriage completely in this country.

    Thank you,

    Kelsey B.
    The Care2 Petitions Team


    SIGN NOW >


    To stop receiving this newsletter, visit:


    or send a blank email message to:


    Care2.com, Inc.
    275 Shoreline Drive, Suite 300
    Redwood City, CA 94065
    http://www.care2.com
  2. #2
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 694
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    the reformist positions ignore the main reality that religion controls and invented the institution of marriage, you cannot solve all the ills of a religious practice like marriage, you must work to abolish it, even though this may seem like a noble cause, it still renforces the concept that marriage itself is appropriate by defining what is and is not appropriate marriages, they might as well work for the church. the true goal should be to abolish marriage in total as a concept and not work to make age appropriate monogamous weddings socially acceptable but instead should be the abolishment of marriage itself
  3. The Following User Says Thank You to willowtooth For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,519
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    the reformist positions ignore the main reality that religion controls and invented the institution of marriage, you cannot solve all the ills of a religious practice like marriage, you must work to abolish it, even though this may seem like a noble cause, it still renforces the concept that marriage itself is appropriate by defining what is and is not appropriate marriages, they might as well work for the church. the true goal should be to abolish marriage in total as a concept and not work to make age appropriate monogamous weddings socially acceptable but instead should be the abolishment of marriage itself

    Yup.



    The monogamous family:

    “ It develops from the pairing family, as we have already shown, during the time of transition from the middle to the higher stage of barbarism. Its final victory is one of the signs of beginning civilization. It is founded on male supremacy for the pronounced purpose of breeding children of indisputable paternal lineage. The latter is required, because these children shall later on inherit the fortune of their father. The monogamous family is distinguished from the pairing family by the far greater durability of wedlock, which can no longer be dissolved at the pleasure of either party. As a rule, it is only the man who can still dissolve it and cast off his wife. ”

    Family and property[edit]

    Engels' ideas on the role of property in the creation of the modern family and as such modern civilization begin to become more transparent in the latter part of Chapter 2 as he begins to elaborate on the question of the monogamous relationship and the freedom to enter into (or refuse) such a relationship. Bourgeois law dictates the rules for relationships and inheritances. As such, two partners, even when their marriage is not arranged, will always have the preservation of inheritance in mind and as such will never be entirely free to choose their partner. Engels argues that a relationship based on property rights and forced monogamy will only lead to the proliferation of immorality and prostitution.

    The only class, according to Engels, which is free from these restraints of property, and as a result from the danger of moral decay, is the proletariat, as they lack the monetary means that are the basis of (as well as threat to) the bourgeois marriage. Monogamy is therefore guaranteed by the fact that theirs is a voluntary sex-love relationship.

    The social revolution which Engels believed was about to happen would eliminate class differences, and therefore also the need for prostitution and the enslavement of women. If men needed only to be concerned with sex-love and no longer with property and inheritance, then monogamy would come naturally.
  5. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date Aug 2016
    Location Israel unfortunately
    Posts 73
    Rep Power 2

    Default

    I've heard of this story. Child marriage is still legal in 27 US states/provinces, with the permission of the child's parents. There was an attempt to veto it in New Jersey, and Chris Christie vetoed the ban. Guess what his excuse was.

    "I agree that protecting the well-being, dignity, and freedom of minors is vital, but the severe bar this bill creates is not necessary to address the concerns voiced by the bill’s proponents and does not comport with the sensibilities and, in some cases, the religious customs, of the people of this State."

    the reformist positions ignore the main reality that religion controls and invented the institution of marriage, you cannot solve all the ills of a religious practice like marriage, you must work to abolish it, even though this may seem like a noble cause, it still renforces the concept that marriage itself is appropriate by defining what is and is not appropriate marriages, they might as well work for the church. the true goal should be to abolish marriage in total as a concept and not work to make age appropriate monogamous weddings socially acceptable but instead should be the abolishment of marriage itself
    What good is abolishing marriage? Just because it emerged under class society and served it? So did industry, and writing, and courts.

    It's been shown that on average, marriages last longer than cohabitation relationships, and are less likely to dissolve. There absolutely are many couples who would love to have a tool for decreasing the risk of relationship dissolution.

    Most people have had more than one committed relationship but only one marriage. This does give marriage the value and ability of anointing, elevating a given committed relationship as more than "just another" committed relationship.

    To abolish marriage is to deprive individuals and couples from the legal and social benefits that it offers. No longer would couples be able to legally document a next-of-kin relation that, from the perspective of law, is the primary relationship of their life (before children, parents and siblings), and that therefore entails benefits related to insurance, taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, spousal privilege, matrimonial regime, simply an ease of proving to themselves, each other and others the nature and seriousness of their relationship, and much more.

    There are basically two types of religion marriage: religious and civil. So unless you believe that religion should be suppressed actively by the state, marriage will go on, at least until religion itself withers away. The question would then be whether to abolish civil marriage. Now, remember that civil marriage is mainly a legal matter, and as far as I can see, marriage has been made equal on paper.

    If anything, for marriage equality, I only urge the legalization of same-sex marriage and attempts to cleanse marriage of the vestigial patriarchal customs: the male suitor's asking for the prospective father-in-law's blessing, the male-on-female proposal ritual, betrothal, wedding ceremony and, of course, a wife's replacement of her "maiden name" (i.e., her father's surname) with her identity as so-and-so's "missus" (while a "mister" stays a "mister" regardless of marital status). As I'm not a bourgeois individualist or a liberal, I take no issue with basing one's identity on one's relation to one's spouse, so long as it's equal, symmetrical and reciprocal (e.g., with the mutual use of double surnames).

    Anything beyond that is not a critique of matrimony but of committed relationships themselves.

    Nobody should marry ever, in their entire lifetime, if they don't want to. But to deprive couples of this option by abolishing the institution is not so appropriate, either.
    Last edited by Fellow_Human; 6th June 2017 at 11:21.
    “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible…” —Peter Thiel, VC-ist, PYPL, FB, $2.7B. “[T]he notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ … ha[s been] rendered … into an oxymoron.” —Ibid.
    I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating.” —Boss Tweed
  7. #5
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 694
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    I've heard of this story. Child marriage is still legal in 27 US states/provinces, with the permission of the child's parents. There was an attempt to veto it in New Jersey, and Chris Christie vetoed the ban. Guess what his excuse was.

    "I agree that protecting the well-being, dignity, and freedom of minors is vital, but the severe bar this bill creates is not necessary to address the concerns voiced by the bill’s proponents and does not comport with the sensibilities and, in some cases, the religious customs, of the people of this State."
    It is a religious custom. I should note that in America those stats are little hard to define, it could be much more as these stats aren't properly kept track of, but also they count two 17 year olds getting married with their parents permission as a "child marriage" which is obviously a different thing than a 71 year old getting married to a 9 year old he raped.

    However this is still a religious custom you get married at a church for a reason, the only other reason is because of the state encouraging marriages because of religious reasons by providing unfair benefits to couples who get married, insurance and immigration benefits, tax breaks, property rights etc. So the act of refusing to get married is a radical act because you are essentially giving away all of these rights and benefits in order to make a political statement. But of course this doesn't even matter because we have whats called "common law marriage" meaning that as long as you have lived in whats relatively regarded as a married couple behavior the state will call you married whether youve signed any papetwork or not. Isn't that nice of them?

    What good is abolishing marriage? Just because it emerged under class society and served it? So did industry, and writing, and courts.
    Marriage is for the upper classes, because it serves as a means to designate property rights. It is not a technological or philosophical achievement. monogamous marriage is yet even worse. Most people began having sex at puberty they still do in many places, the first age of consent laws in America were actually set at 8 years old, not 18. age of consent was actually a feminist movement to prevent the 71 year olds from marrying 9 year olds. This somehow has transformed into this perverted mix of still allowing people to get married, but not until they reach the age of 18, meaning children are still discouraged from having sex until they can get married, but because of age of consent they are discouraged as well from getting married until they are atleast 18. This is of course is a lie, children still have sex when they reach puberty, teenage pregnancy is still a major concern especially the poorest classes not because we can't get kids to keep their genitals in their pants but because we have mutated this old religious custom in order to make it more socially acceptable.

    It's been shown that on average, marriages last longer than cohabitation relationships, and are less likely to dissolve. There absolutely are many couples who would love to have a tool for decreasing the risk of relationship dissolution.
    who cares? what business is it of yours if people are more likely to cohabitate or not? why are you so concerned with discouraging relationship dissolution?

    Most people have had more than one committed relationship but only one marriage. This does give marriage the value and ability of anointing, elevating a given committed relationship as more than "just another" committed relationship.
    all the more reason for it be abolished why is your relationship better than mine? because you have the states approval? what about all the people who do not meet the states criteria?

    To abolish marriage is to deprive individuals and couples from the legal and social benefits that it offers. No longer would couples be able to legally document a next-of-kin relation that, from the perspective of law, is the primary relationship of their life (before children, parents and siblings), and that therefore entails benefits related to insurance, taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, spousal privilege, matrimonial regime, simply an ease of proving to themselves, each other and others the nature and seriousness of their relationship, and much more.
    no to create a system where you give benefits to the few at the expense of the many in order to manipulate them through the state/the church is a crime. You can establish any of these legal benefits with who ever you want next of kin, inheritance, child custody etc without marriage so theres no need for the marriage itself, they dont need to be having sex either.
    There are basically two types of religion: religious and civil. So unless you believe that religion should be suppressed actively by the state, marriage will go on, at least until religion itself withers away. The question would then be whether to abolish civil marriage. Now, remember that civil marriage is mainly a legal matter, and as far as I can see, marriage has been made equal on paper.

    what the hell is "religious religion"? Look marriage is religious, the state enforces marriages as part of its state religion

    If anything, for marriage equality, I only urge the legalization of same-sex marriage and attempts to cleanse marriage of the vestigial patriarchal customs: the male suitor's asking for the prospective father-in-law's blessing, the male-on-female proposal ritual, betrothal, wedding ceremony and, of course, a wife's replacement of her "maiden name" (i.e., her father's surname) with her identity as so-and-so's "missus" (while a "mister" stays a "mister" regardless of marital status). As I'm not a bourgeois individualist or a liberal, I take no issue with basing one's identity on one's relation to one's spouse, so long as it's equal, symmetrical and reciprocal (e.g., with the mutual use of double surnames).

    Anything beyond that is not a critique of matrimony but of committed relationships themselves.
    what about polygamous marriages, polyamorous marriages? Whats so special about homosexual monogamous marriages? it is simply again this mutation of religious practices and taboos that has led to this, where we admit that marriage is a sick and vile custom that only benefits the few, but instead of abolishing we adjust it and change it to make it more socially acceptable

    Nobody should marry ever, in their entire lifetime, if they don't want to. But to deprive couples of this option by abolishing the institution is not so appropriate, either.
    well you personally can say nobody should marry ever, bu who is going to really listen to you except maybe your close friends and family. Whats going to destroy all the problems marriage causes?
  8. #6
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,519
    Rep Power 62

    Default

    Agreed on the bulk of your post, WT, with a couple of minor (get it -- ?)(hahahahaha) details to address:



    You can establish any of these legal benefits with who ever you want next of kin, inheritance, child custody etc without marriage so theres no need for the marriage itself, they dont need to be having sex either.

    This is a controversial statement since its debatable whether the system of capitalism would *inherently* allow such radical alterations to its superstructure (you're indicating reformism of some kinds, and not a paradigm-shift *post*-capitalist social context).



    marriage is religious, the state enforces marriages as part of its state religion

    Technically speaking there *is no* 'state religion' because most of the U.S. government system is secular -- nonetheless many government-institutional religious *customs* persist from earlier colonial (and pre-colonial, British-culture) times.
  9. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 694
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Agreed on the bulk of your post, WT, with a couple of minor (get it -- ?)(hahahahaha) details to address:





    This is a controversial statement since its debatable whether the system of capitalism would *inherently* allow such radical alterations to its superstructure (you're indicating reformism of some kinds, and not a paradigm-shift *post*-capitalist social context).
    yeah I know i thought about deleting it, but what I was basically saying is that even without marriage all these things would be possible so if that was the only goal you wouldn't need marriage. It's like if we gave every married couple a million dollars, and then we said "abolish marriage" and someone said "well how the hell am I supposed to get my million dollars?"



    Technically speaking there *is no* 'state religion' because most of the U.S. government system is secular -- nonetheless many government-institutional religious *customs* persist from earlier colonial (and pre-colonial, British-culture) times.
    They do though if the religious traditions were based in Islam polygamy would be much more common, or Mormonism for that matter. If it were Hindu then arranged marriages would be a lot more popular and accepted.
  11. #8
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,519
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    [E]ven without marriage all these things would be possible so if that was the only goal you wouldn't need marriage. It's like if we gave every married couple a million dollars, and then we said "abolish marriage" and someone said "well how the hell am I supposed to get my million dollars?"

    I think we're starting to go in circles now -- I'll have to reiterate that it's dubious as to whether the overall capitalist superstructure / societal norms would even *allow* such a sea-change in its political-economy 'culture' in the first place.

    Yes, *hypothetically*, marriage doesn't have to be *the* vehicle for the logistical satisfaction of inheritance and child custody, etc., but it certainly fills that void readily by making marriage a legal standard for such.



    They do though if the religious traditions were based in Islam polygamy would be much more common, or Mormonism for that matter. If it were Hindu then arranged marriages would be a lot more popular and accepted.

    I'm trying to draw a distinction between (Western) (Christian) religious *culture*, and having an official *state religion* (something akin to North Korea, Sharia law, or the social environment of The Handmaid's Tale.
  12. #9
    Join Date Aug 2016
    Location Israel unfortunately
    Posts 73
    Rep Power 2

    Default

    It [marriage] is a religious custom.
    Must everything that originated in religion be destroyed?

    "Contrary to conventional wisdom, the WHO advises that only corpses carrying an infectious disease strictly require burial." It's believed that cremation and interment are some of the earliest detectable religious practices. Must cemeteries be destroyed?

    "The university is generally regarded as a formal institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting." Must universities be destroyed?
    "European higher education took place for hundreds of years in Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools (scholae monasticae), in which monks and nuns taught classes".
    In the European Middle Ages, teaching was delegated to the second estate. Ascetics and clergy were natural teachers.

    The truth is that matrimony predates monotheistic religion and was not so much a product of religion as of culture. In fact, I noticed *this* interesting tidbit:

    "From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required. However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, '[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust.'"

    Yes. "First comes love, then comes marriage," then comes its religionization.

    However this is still a religious custom you get married at a church for a reason
    You literally don't have to step anywhere close to a place of worship in order to get married according to the law, let alone to throw a wedding.

    monogamous marriage is yet even worse.
    Why?

    This somehow has transformed into this perverted mix of still allowing people to get married, but not until they reach the age of 18, meaning children are still discouraged from having sex until they can get married
    No. The reason why minors are discouraged from having sex with each other has nothing to do with their legal inability to marry.

    but because of age of consent they are discouraged as well from getting married until they are atleast 18.
    Again, no. Age of consent and legally marriageable age are two separate concepts. Westerners are informally discouraged from marrying until they are in their mid-twenties, let alone age 18.

    This is of course is a lie, children still have sex when they reach puberty
    The average age for puberty is, I believe, something like 12, 11, while the average age for first instance of PIV sex is 17, so no, kids don't start bumping uglies as soon as they hit puberty.

    It's not illegal for peers to have sex with each other at *any* age. Age of consent is not about the age when it's acceptable for you to have sex with your *peers*; it's about the age when an adult of any age can have sex with you without it being statutory rape.

    teenage pregnancy is still a major concern especially the poorest classes not because we can't get kids to keep their genitals in their pants but because we have mutated this old religious custom in order to make it more socially acceptable.
    Didn't quite get what you meant there.

    A great deal of people care.

    why are you so concerned with discouraging relationship dissolution?
    Relationships dissolve because something is wrong; no relationship dissolves when everything is right. I personally would like to do everything possible to reduce the risk of *me* ever having to dissolve my relationship with my life partner. Believe it or not, there are *many* people who want their relationship to last for life, and they're glad to have a tool to increase the chance of that, and I'm glad for *them*. Moreover, since we don't live in a vacuum, and since our cultural environments affect us all and all of our own personal relationships, I *would* rather live in a society where most spouses stay happily married for life -- if seeing people happy wasn't enough of a reason.

    all the more reason for it be abolished why is your relationship better than mine? because you have the states approval?
    That's like saying, "That's another reason why formal education should be abolished. How is your education better than mine, just because you have a certificate from an institution?" Marriage doesn't make a relationship "superior," just more secure. It's not elitist because it's open to all couples (unlike postsecondary education in many countries, the costs of which are prohibitory to the poorest citizens).

    what about all the people who do not meet the states criteria?
    Such as?

    You can establish any of these legal benefits with who ever you want next of kin, inheritance, child custody etc without marriage so theres no need for the marriage itself
    Not really. You can't file taxes jointly with anyone besides your legal spouse. To get life insurance on someone, for example, you need to prove "insurable interest." There are many ways in which marriage solves a lot of red tape. If a child is born to a woman who is married to a man, the man is automatically recognized as the child's father, with no need for any paperwork.

    they dont need to be having sex either.
    How do you think asexual relationships work? You don't have to have sex to get married or stay married, nor do you have to be married to have sex. A marriage -- or indeed, any committed relationship -- is not defined by sex. These are two completely independent things.

    what the hell is "religious religion"?
    I meant two types of marriage, not two types of religion. Sorry. Stupid typo.

    Look marriage is religious, the state enforces marriages as part of its state religion
    Ckaihatsu has addressed the problem with that statement.

    what about polygamous marriages, polyamorous marriages?
    I'm open to debate this further, but... For a start, it's legally problematic. Would there be *any* limit on the number of spouses? If you're on life support, which spouse gets to have the final say on whether to pull the plug? Would you have the choice to legally differentiate betweeen a primary spouse and *non*-primary spouses? Would you need your current spouse(s) consent to marry yet *another* person? If one woman is married to two men and she gives birth, are both of her husbands the child's legal fathers? What if people abuse this loophole in different ways, e.g. marrying all their business partners to be able to register their business as a sole proprietorships? There are *so* many ways that this could be abused, and so many ways in which this is simply a legal headache.

    Of course there are still countries today where legal polygamy exists, but it's simplified in those countries because (1) in almost all of them, only a man is allowed to have multiple wives, (2) there *is* a limit on the number of spouses, and (3) same-sex marriage isn't allowed.

    Whats going to destroy all the problems marriage causes?
    Such as?


    P.S.

    You can establish any of these legal benefits with who ever you want next of kin
    It's up to you who you want to consider family -- adopt or disown, marry or divorce -- but the affinal ("in-law") relation is a specific type of kinship that is established only through marriage.
    Last edited by Fellow_Human; 9th June 2017 at 23:39. Reason: postscript
  13. #10
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,519
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    Must everything that originated in religion be destroyed?

    This is a borderline *reactionary* statement, in my opinion.

    Revolutionaries understand that traditional institutions like religion and marriage are a *stopgap* measure, at best, for the ongoing crisis of private property and how surplus labor value is to be distributed.

    I myself wouldn't be found roaming the sidewalks with a bullhorn in hand, excoriating people to 'say no' to marriage, but it's *not* the individual, personal scale that we're interested in with our politics, anyway. Certainly people should get into whatever healthy relationships -- or not -- that they want to. *Our* concern is with how bourgeois society implicitly 'legitimizes' certain cultural practices like marriage, which we already know has its foundation in the social practice of passing along private property 'appropriately' -- here's from post #3:



    The monogamous family:

    “ It develops from the pairing family, as we have already shown, during the time of transition from the middle to the higher stage of barbarism. Its final victory is one of the signs of beginning civilization. It is founded on male supremacy for the pronounced purpose of breeding children of indisputable paternal lineage. The latter is required, because these children shall later on inherit the fortune of their father. The monogamous family is distinguished from the pairing family by the far greater durability of wedlock, which can no longer be dissolved at the pleasure of either party. As a rule, it is only the man who can still dissolve it and cast off his wife. ”

    So you happen to be arguing for the preservation of a strictly *class-based* societal institution and practice. Once the class division is superseded the *post*-capitalist society will be like *primitive* communism (with full mechanical automation), but any social practices that people do will not be private-property-based *institutions*, so there will be no implicit coercion towards this-culture or that-culture for the sake of some kind of socialization (and human-needed private property) -- people will simply be able to associate as they wish, or not, in a purely self-determining way, with no anxiety as to their livelihood and well-being in *how* they associate (what groups they 'pick'), because humane productivity will not depend on private-property-based 'cultures'. Free-association will be purely discretionary and personally-creative -- if what people do with that happens to look like 'religion', then so be it, but there will be no religious-group-'tribalism' for the sake of private-property 'turf' and survival in competition with other groups for the basic needs of life and living.


    ---



    "Contrary to conventional wisdom, the WHO advises that only corpses carrying an infectious disease strictly require burial." It's believed that cremation and interment are some of the earliest detectable religious practices.

    Must cemeteries be destroyed?

    I haven't heard anything regarding how death and funerary practices might be handled in a post-capitalist societal context, but perhaps much of current bourgeois culture would be relegated to *museums* in favor of more-contemporary humane-rational developments in the essentials of common social practice. It's very difficult to predict or guess-at such future-issues.



    "The university is generally regarded as a formal institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting." Must universities be destroyed?

    Again you're couching your position with a cloak of traditionalism, which is problematic for a revolutionary politics. The Internet has *already* done much to surpass the conventional classroom paradigm, to provide more customized and individuated interaction over education methods, as we do here at RevLeft with our discussions -- not to mention Wikipedia, search engines, and other novel Internet-based information sources.

    So, instead, one could query: Why *shouldn't* universities be 'destroyed' (as a social practice, not its content) -- ?



    "European higher education took place for hundreds of years in Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools (scholae monasticae), in which monks and nuns taught classes".
    In the European Middle Ages, teaching was delegated to the second estate. Ascetics and clergy were natural teachers.

    The truth is that matrimony predates monotheistic religion and was not so much a product of religion as of culture. In fact, I noticed *this* interesting tidbit:

    "From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required. However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, '[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust.'"

    Yes. "First comes love, then comes marriage," then comes its religionization.

    You're muddying your own position -- should a proletarian revolution *contemporize* the world's social practices (including according to empirically-available technologies and potentials), or shouldn't it -- ?



    I'm open to debate this further, but... For a start, it's legally problematic.

    You're more concerned with bourgeois *legalities* in the here-and-now, than with societal *potentials* for improvements that point to an objective social *need* for proletarian revolution, like abolishing private property, inheritance, and state/religious 'marriage'.



    Would there be *any* limit on the number of spouses? If you're on life support, which spouse gets to have the final say on whether to pull the plug? Would you have the choice to legally differentiate betweeen a primary spouse and *non*-primary spouses? Would you need your current spouse(s) consent to marry yet *another* person? If one woman is married to two men and she gives birth, are both of her husbands the child's legal fathers? What if people abuse this loophole in different ways, e.g. marrying all their business partners to be able to register their business as a sole proprietorships? There are *so* many ways that this could be abused, and so many ways in which this is simply a legal headache.

    These are all *logistical* arguments over *formalities* (bourgeois-oriented), rather than taking the side of free-association *self-determination*. Consider that current social-media technologies like Facebook already readily provide the capacity for complex, many-to-many linkages, as for friendships -- there's no need to be so concerned over purported 'complications' regarding arbitrary personal social linkages and/or the formal tracking of such. Personal matters like the ones you've listed can be handled *personally* without too much fuss, once humanity is no longer subdivided against itself, with towering, private-property *material* interests in-the-mix for any given situation.
  14. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  15. #11
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,519
    Rep Power 62

    Default

    Also, from a past thread:



    [I]f work is to be minimized, how would a socialist- or communist-type society do that for the raising and socialization of the young -- ? The novel 'Brave New World' lampoons this social issue effectively as propaganda but that doesn't eliminate the issue itself.

    Just offhand perhaps a post-capitalist more-advanced society wouldn't confer early-age raising onto the biological parents themselves (*gasp*), and/or perhaps it would be able to grant personal social *independence* to young ones at *very* early ages, with the use of physical prosthetics (for mobility), tablet-like button-to-speech interfaces (for communication), etc., to complement the overall world-society openness and post-scarcity general availability of humane resources.

    Does emotional labour create real value?

    https://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/1...53#post2875353
  16. #12
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 694
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Must everything that originated in religion be destroyed?
    everything that is only justified through organized religion
    "Contrary to conventional wisdom, the WHO advises that only corpses carrying an infectious disease strictly require burial." It's believed that cremation and interment are some of the earliest detectable religious practices. Must cemeteries be destroyed?
    yes most cemeteries, Im really in favor of mass graves or mandatory cremation except maybe under certain special circumstances. Anything but the massive waste of land today, just to turn our ancestors corpses into living monuments. Even funerals themselves are a disgusting act, they pump you full of chemicals and then paint your face in makeup so every can gather around and pray for your ghost. If wasn't for the need for bereavement after death and the benefits of congregation afterward, I would say abolish funerals altogether, I still might. But corpse disposal is a different subject... we can't let grandpa get covered in maggots and carried off by the wolves I suppose lol

    "The university is generally regarded as a formal institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting." Must universities be destroyed?
    Yes of course, but I've never heard that universities have anything to do with Christianity, much less medieval Christianity. I'm pretty sure they existed in spite of Christianity, that's sort of like saying Galileo and his discoveries have their origin in Christianity


    "European higher education took place for hundreds of years in Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools (scholae monasticae), in which monks and nuns taught classes".
    In the European Middle Ages, teaching was delegated to the second estate. Ascetics and clergy were natural teachers.
    Correct and the pope spends millions on studying astronomy every year whats your point? It doesn't we cant study astronomy without the papacy. The word university itself just means "community"..... so we are in a university right now

    The truth is that matrimony predates monotheistic religion and was not so much a product of religion as of culture. In fact, I noticed *this* interesting tidbit:

    "From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required. However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, '[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust.'"

    Yes. "First comes love, then comes marriage," then comes its religionization.
    There was still religion before Jesus? That did the pharaoh have to say about it? They got married lol, I'm not singling out monotheism, or monogamy

    You literally don't have to step anywhere close to a place of worship in order to get married according to the law, let alone to throw a wedding.
    Maybe in your country in todays time, but not everywhere.

    No. The reason why minors are discouraged from having sex with each other has nothing to do with their legal inability to marry.
    If it were common to get married at puberty like it used to be, and still is in many laces, then nobody would be yelling at 16 year olds not to have sex. They'd be married



    Again, no. Age of consent and legally marriageable age are two separate concepts. Westerners are informally discouraged from marrying until they are in their mid-twenties, let alone age 18.
    they are generally discouraged from having children because kids are expensive, and are a form of private property and if you can't afford to feed your baby then you shouldnt "get one", just like if you can't afford gas then you shouldn't "get" a car. Even children are commodities under capitalism

    The average age for puberty is, I believe, something like 12, 11, while the average age for first instance of PIV sex is 17, so no, kids don't start bumping uglies as soon as they hit puberty.
    Again that might be something that only applies to certain countries, but look what your saying, the average age for losing your virginity is 1 year lower than the legal age to get married in same country

    It's not illegal for peers to have sex with each other at *any* age. Age of consent is not about the age when it's acceptable for you to have sex with your *peers*; it's about the age when an adult of any age can have sex with you without it being statutory rape.
    In many countries there is no age of consent, some laws are still set as low as 8 or 9, usually in counties that are also very strict about promoting the values of marriage and virginity.

    Relationships dissolve because something is wrong; no relationship dissolves when everything is right. I personally would like to do everything possible to reduce the risk of *me* ever having to dissolve my relationship with my life partner. Believe it or not, there are *many* people who want their relationship to last for life, and they're glad to have a tool to increase the chance of that, and I'm glad for *them*. Moreover, since we don't live in a vacuum, and since our cultural environments affect us all and all of our own personal relationships, I *would* rather live in a society where most spouses stay happily married for life -- if seeing people happy wasn't enough of a reason.
    you personally should get married, if only for the tax break...but dont do it in a courtroom or a synagogue, go perform the most ridiculous religious ceremony you can find or think of, then invite all your friends and family to watch as you crack the monitor lizards eggs over your partners head then dance to the sound of a priestess yodeling for an hour, then have sex in front of the whole congregation so that everyone knows the marriage was consummated.

    That's like saying, "That's another reason why formal education should be abolished. How is your education better than mine, just because you have a certificate from an institution?" Marriage doesn't make a relationship "superior," just more secure. It's not elitist because it's open to all couples (unlike postsecondary education in many countries, the costs of which are prohibitory to the poorest citizens).
    formal education should be abolished but that doesn't mean I'm telling you to drop out of school today







    Not really. You can't file taxes jointly with anyone besides your legal spouse. To get life insurance on someone, for example, you need to prove "insurable interest." There are many ways in which marriage solves a lot of red tape. If a child is born to a woman who is married to a man, the man is automatically recognized as the child's father, with no need for any paperwork.
    of course take all the tax breaks you can, start a fake church in your basement if you like to cheat the tax man as well, I was thinking of doing that myself just dont start quoting scripture. But you should always get a DNA test to prove you are the father. Since we are using the term in the biological sense as in "my sperm helped create this baby so its my property", not the colloquial "the man who raised me" sense which could almost be applied to anyone
    How do you think asexual relationships work? You don't have to have sex to get married or stay married, nor do you have to be married to have sex. A marriage -- or indeed, any committed relationship -- is not defined by sex. These are two completely independent things.
    An A-sexual relationship is just like a really good friendship when you think about it



    I'm open to debate this further, but... For a start, it's legally problematic. Would there be *any* limit on the number of spouses? If you're on life support, which spouse gets to have the final say on whether to pull the plug? Would you have the choice to legally differentiate betweeen a primary spouse and *non*-primary spouses? Would you need your current spouse(s) consent to marry yet *another* person? If one woman is married to two men and she gives birth, are both of her husbands the child's legal fathers? What if people abuse this loophole in different ways, e.g. marrying all their business partners to be able to register their business as a sole proprietorships? There are *so* many ways that this could be abused, and so many ways in which this is simply a legal headache.

    Of course there are still countries today where legal polygamy exists, but it's simplified in those countries because (1) in almost all of them, only a man is allowed to have multiple wives, (2) there *is* a limit on the number of spouses, and (3) same-sex marriage isn't allowed.
    No lol, this is why I am saying we should abolish marriage. NOT work to reform it in some sensible sense to include everyone who many want to participate, and not harm society as much





    It's up to you who you want to consider family -- adopt or disown, marry or divorce -- but the affinal ("in-law") relation is a specific type of kinship that is established only through marriage.
    and it should be abolished as well

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts