Marriage and Atheism

[charlou]

Derail: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =38&t=8141

[JimC]

Well, it's worked for me for over 26 years, but, as many in this thread have said, it is only one out of many arrangements that people end up in, and has no special status for me other than the societal one.

Hominid mating arrangements are potentially tricky, so attempts by society to exert some form of control are not unexpected. That does not mean such controls are sensible or desirable for every circumstance...

[MrFungus420]

It's a great institution. Not everyone needs to be institutionalized, though...

[JimC]

It's a great institution. Not everyone needs to be institutionalized, though...

Boom boom...

Was that a Groucho line?

[Trolldor]

It is precisely that, as it currently is (at least in Australian society) it's pretending that you are in a state seperate to, usually superior to, unmarried couples. In that way, it's nothing but a performance.

TWADDLE! My best friend had been with her partner 5 years when I got married, superior my tush, she was one of the more important role models to me in terms of her relationship - infinitely more so than my married parents! I've seen some god awful marriages and was in no hurry to even be in a relationship for social approval - I spent 10 years alone, but then I had something that is a once in a lifetime thing, a second chance with the one person in all my life who I loved as much as a friend as I did as a lover.

I have another good friend who says strong words are when the heart and the mouth speak one language not two like a politician. marriage is only, and no more than, the extent the heart and mouth are speaking one language from BOTH people. I don't care if 6 billion people marry to impress the Jones', I don't care if 6 billion people marry at all - I care that they can, (only a recent occurrence for my best mate) and I care that whether or not two people are married, if they have given that life long commitment to each other then it should be respected.

The simple fact is marriage is an unnecessary and absurd ritual.
Are two people committed because they are married? Or married because they are committed?
The answer should be neither. Marriage is 'divorced' from committment in a relationship which one would classify themselves as 'in love'. It adds nothing and produces nothing tangible to the relationship bar financial benefits in some places. A marriage should not take place as a 'final show' of commitment, because then it really is a performance. It should not be the deciding factor as to whether the relationship continues. There should be no pressure for two people in a long-term relationship to get married. It should not signal the union of families or the blessing of a relationship. A marriage should mean nothing because that is precisely what it is. If a relationship can not survive in the absence of a metal circle and a state-certified contract, then it is not a relationship but a temporary partnership of convenience.
But on the matter of choice, every (legal age) couple should have the freedom to be wed, even if they have no intention of marrying. The freedom to make a choice is a far more precious commoditity than making the choice itself.

[MrFungus420]

It's a great institution. Not everyone needs to be institutionalized, though...

Boom boom...

Was that a Groucho line?

I thought it was WC Fields, but on checking, it has been attributed to Fields, Groucho and Mae West...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It is precisely that, as it currently is (at least in Australian society) it's pretending that you are in a state seperate to, usually superior to, unmarried couples. In that way, it's nothing but a performance.

TWADDLE! My best friend had been with her partner 5 years when I got married, superior my tush, she was one of the more important role models to me in terms of her relationship - infinitely more so than my married parents! I've seen some god awful marriages and was in no hurry to even be in a relationship for social approval - I spent 10 years alone, but then I had something that is a once in a lifetime thing, a second chance with the one person in all my life who I loved as much as a friend as I did as a lover.

I have another good friend who says strong words are when the heart and the mouth speak one language not two like a politician. marriage is only, and no more than, the extent the heart and mouth are speaking one language from BOTH people. I don't care if 6 billion people marry to impress the Jones', I don't care if 6 billion people marry at all - I care that they can, (only a recent occurrence for my best mate) and I care that whether or not two people are married, if they have given that life long commitment to each other then it should be respected.

The simple fact is marriage is an unnecessary and absurd ritual.
Are two people committed because they are married? Or married because they are committed?
The answer should be neither. Marriage is 'divorced' from committment in a relationship which one would classify themselves as 'in love'. It adds nothing and produces nothing tangible to the relationship bar financial benefits in some places. A marriage should not take place as a 'final show' of commitment, because then it really is a performance. It should not be the deciding factor as to whether the relationship continues. There should be no pressure for two people in a long-term relationship to get married. It should not signal the union of families or the blessing of a relationship. A marriage should mean nothing because that is precisely what it is. If a relationship can not survive in the absence of a metal circle and a state-certified contract, then it is not a relationship but a temporary partnership of convenience.
But on the matter of choice, every (legal age) couple should have the freedom to be wed, even if they have no intention of marrying. The freedom to make a choice is a far more precious commoditity than making the choice itself.

If you look at marriage from a strictly pragmatic level then why not just an inflate-a-mate and cut the complications?

[AshtonBlack]

I really don't care for marriage. But, looked at in another way, I suppose, a civil type registration could protect those entering into co-habitation. I definitely agree that it shouldn't be seen as any more "superior", financially, to any other living arrangement.

[floppit]

I think I'll just agree to differ BAA. It was the motive suggested by calling it acting I was disputing but ultimately that's the thing about judging motives, it can neither be proven nor refuted.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think I'll just agree to differ BAA. It was the motive suggested by calling it acting I was disputing but ultimately that's the thing about judging motives, it can neither be proven nor refuted.

BAA employs the Argument from OGB.

[Trolldor]

It is precisely that, as it currently is (at least in Australian society) it's pretending that you are in a state seperate to, usually superior to, unmarried couples. In that way, it's nothing but a performance.

TWADDLE! My best friend had been with her partner 5 years when I got married, superior my tush, she was one of the more important role models to me in terms of her relationship - infinitely more so than my married parents! I've seen some god awful marriages and was in no hurry to even be in a relationship for social approval - I spent 10 years alone, but then I had something that is a once in a lifetime thing, a second chance with the one person in all my life who I loved as much as a friend as I did as a lover.

I have another good friend who says strong words are when the heart and the mouth speak one language not two like a politician. marriage is only, and no more than, the extent the heart and mouth are speaking one language from BOTH people. I don't care if 6 billion people marry to impress the Jones', I don't care if 6 billion people marry at all - I care that they can, (only a recent occurrence for my best mate) and I care that whether or not two people are married, if they have given that life long commitment to each other then it should be respected.

The simple fact is marriage is an unnecessary and absurd ritual.
Are two people committed because they are married? Or married because they are committed?
The answer should be neither. Marriage is 'divorced' from committment in a relationship which one would classify themselves as 'in love'. It adds nothing and produces nothing tangible to the relationship bar financial benefits in some places. A marriage should not take place as a 'final show' of commitment, because then it really is a performance. It should not be the deciding factor as to whether the relationship continues. There should be no pressure for two people in a long-term relationship to get married. It should not signal the union of families or the blessing of a relationship. A marriage should mean nothing because that is precisely what it is. If a relationship can not survive in the absence of a metal circle and a state-certified contract, then it is not a relationship but a temporary partnership of convenience.
But on the matter of choice, every (legal age) couple should have the freedom to be wed, even if they have no intention of marrying. The freedom to make a choice is a far more precious commoditity than making the choice itself.

If you look at marriage from a strictly pragmatic level then why not just an inflate-a-mate and cut the complications?

Blow-up dolls can't cook or clean.

[JimC]

It is precisely that, as it currently is (at least in Australian society) it's pretending that you are in a state seperate to, usually superior to, unmarried couples. In that way, it's nothing but a performance.

TWADDLE! My best friend had been with her partner 5 years when I got married, superior my tush, she was one of the more important role models to me in terms of her relationship - infinitely more so than my married parents! I've seen some god awful marriages and was in no hurry to even be in a relationship for social approval - I spent 10 years alone, but then I had something that is a once in a lifetime thing, a second chance with the one person in all my life who I loved as much as a friend as I did as a lover.

I have another good friend who says strong words are when the heart and the mouth speak one language not two like a politician. marriage is only, and no more than, the extent the heart and mouth are speaking one language from BOTH people. I don't care if 6 billion people marry to impress the Jones', I don't care if 6 billion people marry at all - I care that they can, (only a recent occurrence for my best mate) and I care that whether or not two people are married, if they have given that life long commitment to each other then it should be respected.

The simple fact is marriage is an unnecessary and absurd ritual.
Are two people committed because they are married? Or married because they are committed?
The answer should be neither. Marriage is 'divorced' from committment in a relationship which one would classify themselves as 'in love'. It adds nothing and produces nothing tangible to the relationship bar financial benefits in some places. A marriage should not take place as a 'final show' of commitment, because then it really is a performance. It should not be the deciding factor as to whether the relationship continues. There should be no pressure for two people in a long-term relationship to get married. It should not signal the union of families or the blessing of a relationship. A marriage should mean nothing because that is precisely what it is. If a relationship can not survive in the absence of a metal circle and a state-certified contract, then it is not a relationship but a temporary partnership of convenience.
But on the matter of choice, every (legal age) couple should have the freedom to be wed, even if they have no intention of marrying. The freedom to make a choice is a far more precious commoditity than making the choice itself.

If you look at marriage from a strictly pragmatic level then why not just an inflate-a-mate and cut the complications?

Blow-up dolls can't cook or clean.

Yet...

Wait till realistic androids of either sex, with decent AI capabilities and capable of both sex and household tasks, enter the marketplace. Probably not in my lifetime, but quite possibly in yours, BAA...

[floppit]

What's OGB?

[floppit]

Ok - found it. Busy reading.....

[The Dawktor]

I am a hypocrite- I married in a Cathedral- what a show-off!
I have no objections to it as a legal institution. My evil ex-wife could have caused me somewhat less aggravation if we hadn't been married. But, with the right woman I wouldn't say no. But she'd have to ask very nicely!