Traditional marriage is a form of....hmm? what?

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv ... 7044623648


A lot of radical feminists think like her btw.

I can see her point when it comes to 'exchange' of resources vs reproduction rights, but this is half the story told, prostitutes don't raise/doing-chores/teach/cook/clean like housewives do.

What do you think of her views?

It's an "official" partnership.

I don't care either way if two people are married; if they're in at least a quasi-exclusive partnership, I respect that.

I'm married; I don't feel "married." But the official papers prove that I am.

A ridiculous comparison, nowadays. I find the idea that nothing has value until it is assigned a high monetary worth a very shallow construct.

A marriage that can be reduced to "tit for tat" isn't a partnership as much as a business relationship.

I do not think radical feminists are capable of understanding what love or care is. They see hate and conspiracy in everything.

Marriage.

It is not a word, it is a sentence!

[Moved from L&D to PPR]

It's not for everyone but if you are happy like that, great. Just don't say everyone needs to be like you and others should respect traditional married couples as well. It's about what's best for you.

I am against the traditional concept of marriage and so Jane, I am not sure to who you are addressing this.

I meant the traditional people. They often try to say everyone needs to be married and then they bring religion into it. My stance is be happy in life regardless. If you are happy one way, great, if you aren't then create the reality you need to be happy but don't expect everyone to do what you do because it might mean misery for some.
It's not for everyone but if you are happy like that, great. Just don't say everyone needs to be like you and others should respect traditional married couples as well. It's about what's best for you.

Marriage is, in part, a combination of two realizations. The first realization is that another person's problems have become your problems. The second realization is that you would rather share this person's problems than be alone in facing your own.

Later, you realize that facing your own problems alone is draining, but facing those of the person you are devoted to is self-validating, and you almost dread the words, "I'm fine." You think more than anything, "so what use am I, then?" and then you start getting very inventive to sustain that addictive feeling of self-validation, and it can become a sort of eerie cycle. It is kind of nice, really.

Traditional marriage is a statistically proven failure as an institution(read asylum).

Outmoded, anachronistic, tedious, banal, fit mostly for the 'breeders' as I call them.

Males and females should do as they please without the confinement of matrimony.

Btw, the ceremony was created by the parasitic class(ie. clergy) to justify their existence and putative authority.

Very few humans ever think critically about marriage and as a result the nonsense continues.

So don't get married. It's not like anyone is going to force you to!

I agree, I won't.

Btw I think Jane Caro is way off.

However I think there is a an issue with legal marriage. I think it would be much better if there wasn't such a thing. Or at least have a stripped down version of it (including a stripped down version of any other alternative such as civil partnership).

Legal marriage is like or not is conflated with cultural and religious marriage. This if anything causes issues with religious and cultural freedom, becuase it is difficult to unravel. So what is happening cultural/religious group are being mixed up in legal marriage politics, whilst at the same time.

Think about it, a hypothetical bigoted church or private organization still should have the right to practice its own ceremonies under its own terms as long as it doesn't affect non-members. These group are threatened by the direction of travel of legal marriage becuase of the conflation which is not supposed to be there. If there was not conflation, they have the freedom to be bigoted so long as they don't force it on others who don't want to be apart of their organization. People who want to have a ceremony outside of their rules, are free to find another church or create one.

Personally, I think private life it not the business of the state, and it doesn't make sense to social engineer types of personal relationships, through economic incentives. I also object to awarding different tax status, based on the relationships, or lack of relationships you have.

There is a lot of confusion of commitment, and marriage. Marriage is symbolism (or an institution / sanctity if that is your belief), commitment is commitment.

Don't tell me that spouses or parents that don't get married can't be committed. That is false on couple of points:

- The cultural norm is if you are committed you should get married, this is not the same as lack of commitment being remaining unmarried.
- People like my cousin beg to differ and have been in a committed relationship, with children longer than many marriages.

The responsibilities that exist within a marriage also exist in spite of it. Your responsibilities to your offspring for example, it shouldn't matter if you are married, single or in a partnership.

Contract law can cover all contract aspect of marriage, including the sharing of assets.

Also whatever happened to common law marriage? It is used to be the norm. Not that I want to encourage legal marriage, but historically most people weren't getting married in churches. but in houses (of course there was still religious control).

That state forces you to get "married" after a certain amount of time living together in one household. Thus, it is just marriage in everything but name.


Marriage is just slavery of men since the divorce laws are hilariously sided towards the women. Thus, marriage has become a chain to make man work for the state which serve women since women make up the majority of the voting population.

There is so much wrong in this post I don't know where to start.

How is marriage slavery? You really need to look up the definition of slavery to be honest, because you've compared other things to it and it's so far out of left field it's not even funny.

Second, marriage is not always between a man and a woman. It can between a woman and a woman, a man and a man, and yes, a woman and a man.

Thirdly, do you have something against the female gender? Because the majority of your posts seem to think men are being "held down", when how long have men been in power and are STILL in power? Actual feminists just want equality for everyone, not to rule over men and subjugate them.

Do you not call being force to work for another not slavery? Then what definition of slavery do subscribe too?

Feminism does not which for equality, they wish for rights without any responsibilities. For example, you do not see feminist fighting for female conscription. Marriage as it is currently is about forcing the resources of the higher paid spouse, in most cases males, to support the other to death in some cases. Child support is another issues as a man could never see the child again and still have to pay for it, even if they are not biologically related.

I pity the female gender as it has been evolved to only suck out the resources of the most useful and move onto its next target. I also believe males have been evolved to blindly protect women no matter what. I wish humanity could reject their lizard brains. However, I see this to be unlikely if this gynocentrism society continues.