The thread is about the legal arrangement called marriage. It’s not yours, and it has nothing to do with your relationship. It’s a legal arrangement that’s exactly the same for everyone, and is defined by the government.
When I used the word, that’s what I was referring to. Not your relationship. I have nothing against your relationship, I have a problem with choosing the institution of marriage to define your relationship.
If someone chooses to define themselves and their relationships by tradition and/or religion then I agree 100%. I get where you’re coming from here - Marriage as a relationship between you and God(s) is a perverse thought indeed. Minaja trinity? Ugh.
You can choose any other way to define a relationship or call it what you will too. I honestly don’t care. I’m just defending marriage since it is like any other tradition, Christmas for example, which serves a purpose and you can make it your own. Instead of writing it off because of its origin and you easily take the good and give it a proper premise to serve you.
I understand artistic license, but I don’t understand why that’s the artistry you use! Your artistic license makes marriage sound like slavery to me, even if you didn’t intend anything negative.
Marriage in terms of a “commitment ceremony” is fine to me, but in terms of an actual contract, I find marriage profoundly distasteful. Any explanation I’ve seen for wanting marriage is that it binds a person to you forever. Bottom line, I’m only pointing out why I think marriage is at best unnecessary. and It has no advantage other than government support, which is improper.
Outside of making sure the future Mrs. Architect knew that I was in love with her and wanted to be with her there was no fowl. You are thinking in terms of bondage instead of just a romantic courtship where the lady likes to be chased and caught. Your loved wants to be desired.
You don’t get married to bind someone, you commit yourself to someone so they know they are so important to you life would not be complete without them. You can choose any method of doing this but in my mind a courtship and proposal is certainly more romantic then asking for a contractual civil union of mutual trade.
You are thinking in terms of bondage instead of just a romantic courtship where the lady likes to be chased and caught. Your loved wants to be desired.
My dispute in the post was how you chose to describe marriage as you did, even metaphorically. (And you used another description here that I don’t like: “where the lady likes to be chased and caught”.) Taking artistic license reflects what your examples remind you of, so since I doubted you really want to make marriage sound like slavery, you should describe marriage in wholly different terms. Either that, or you’ve got premises you should question which led you to come up with your description. I actually don’t exactly believe you even can describe marriage as anything but co-dependency, with negative connotation and all. Mostly, the good stuff people mention is commitment, which does not require marriage. People don’t say marriage to refer to the ceremony, but a whole lot more - including what you described as “It was a selfish and romantic claim to what I consider one of the greatest values I had to work to gain.” What do you mean by claim? Why did you choose to say claim as opposed to any other word? In what ways is this even desirable in a romantic relationship? I’m not attempting to nitpick; I’m attempting to see what your premises are.
Traditions can be good or bad, and I think marriage is a bad tradition. Ceremony, great. But the tradition is historically based on economic survival need, hence “until death do us part” - divorce (or simply never getting married) would put you in financial ruin and strained to survive. When romantic relationships become part of an economic tradition, problems arise, especially since it is possible for men and women to have independent economic security these days. Even if you want to talk about only symbolism, I find the symbolism to reflect unconditional love and distrust.
If someone chooses to define themselves and their relationships by tradition and/or religion then I agree 100%. I get where you’re coming from here - Marriage as a relationship between you and God(s) is a perverse thought indeed. Minaja trinity? Ugh.
You can choose any other way to define a relationship or call it what you will too. I honestly don’t care. I’m just defending marriage since it is like any other tradition, Christmas for example, which serves a purpose and you can make it your own. Instead of writing it off because of its origin and you easily take the good and give it a proper premise to serve you.
You can make Christmas your own. You can go out and celebrate Christmas by doing what Jesus hated most of all: shopping for sex toys coated in gold. No one will stop you. You’re the one defining what Christmas is, for yourself, you’re just using the same name the Church uses.
You can’t make marriage your own. Marriage is a legally binding arrangement defined by the state. You’re not the one defining what it is, the government is.
You guys are hopeless. If you were here I’d take you out for a few drinks and get to the bottom of this.
I blame modern music. We need another Frank Sinatra or Barry White stat in this Country.
@Eiuol: You’ll figure it out when you find someone you love so much you want to make them a permanent part of your life. By the way, I got the chase part from my wife since she was the one that actually made it point to run into me (literally) the second time we met, just to make sure I noticed her. I had to laugh later when I read how Rand tripped Frank to get his attention.
@Nicky: I have no idea what the “Government definition” of marriage is, outside in Michigan it reads “a union between and man and a women” nonsense. I’d be curious to know what part I’m missing besides some basic legal structures on property rights when the couple does not define it themselves.
Gold plated sex toys? I guess that is one way to insure an objective standard of orgasm.
@Eiuol: You’ll figure it out when you find someone you love so much you want to make them a permanent part of your life. By the way, I got the chase part from my wife since she was the one that actually made it point to run into me (literally) the second time we met, just to make sure I noticed her. I had to laugh later when I read how Rand tripped Frank to get his attention.
Right, that’s not a chase at all. Metaphor aside, I’m questioning why in fact marriage is even a desirable step for commitment.
I’m questioning why in fact marriage is even a desirable step for commitment.
It’s only desirable when two individuals choose to spend the rest of their lives together and want to formalize their commitment to each other in a manner that makes it evident to their community; it creates a legal and spiritual unity. Civil unions work fine to accomplish the former, and jumping over a broom works fine for the latter, but marriage accomplishes both.
It’s not desirable or necessary for individuals who choose otherwise.
Civil unions work fine to accomplish the former, and jumping over a broom works fine for the latter, but marriage accomplishes both.
Aren’t civil unions the exact same as marriage, except they’re only recognized in certain states? Talk about a double standard from a nation that prides itself on the first amendment.
I agree that civil unions or perhaps possible other arrangements/standards should be equal. At the end of the day a union serves only a few legal issues and it must be equitable under the law.
I’m just a fan of making a commitment grand and romantic. I mean, Perseus didn’t defeat the Gorgon and defy the will of a God so he could ask Andromeda to have a civil union.
Right, that’s not a chase at all. Metaphor aside, I’m questioning why in fact marriage is even a desirable step for commitment.
Legally, there is no reason under a proper legal system.
But asking someone to have an equitable civil union under the law lacks the romantic gesture needed to say “My heart belongs to you”, at least in my mind. Not that you need to have a big wedding, it can be only several people in an isolated spot, but at least do something that screams “I love you”. Waiting at the Justice of the Peace in line while the judge dispenses with common criminals and drug addicts (true story from a friend) does not do that. Tell her you love her and do something romantic to prove it.
Aren’t civil unions the exact same as marriage, except they’re only recognized in certain states? Talk about a double standard from a nation that prides itself on the first amendment.
Civil unions are a good example of the efficacy and consistency of government regulation; marriages are a good example of the efficacy and consistency of two individuals being allowed to set their own terms.
“By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you’ll become happy; if you get a bad one, you’ll become a philosopher.” ~ Socrates.
I agree. Marriages and civil unions should not exist in a fms, at least as they currently stand.
Essentially your argument is that contracts which favor one kind of relationship over another should not exist in a fms (free moral society?)… is this correct? If so, why?
If a man and woman choose to marry, and local regulation of marriage awards them greater legal benefits than two men (or two women) who choose a civil union, or two individuals choosing to live together, what standard of liberty or morality is being violated? Why specifically should a contractual arrangement between a man and woman that is unique to other combinations of gender or commitment, not exist in a fms??
Essentially your argument is that contracts which favor one kind of relationship over another should not exist in a fms (free moral society?)… is this correct? If so, why?
Essentially, I’m saying that the government shouldn’t have any involvement in consensual relationships. You and your wife shouldn’t be ‘awarded greater legal benefits’ than me and my live-in boyfriend, or a gay man and his partner. Married couples shouldn’t be awarded any legal benefits, and you shouldn’t have to pay divorce entitlements if you make more money than your spouse, and the relationship goes sour.
Essentially, I’m saying that the government shouldn’t have any involvement in consensual relationships.
I agree
You and your wife shouldn’t be ‘awarded greater legal benefits’ than me and my live-in boyfriend, or a gay man and his partner. Married couples shouldn’t be awarded any legal benefits, and you shouldn’t have to pay divorce entitlements if you make more money than your spouse, and the relationship goes sour.
Why? By that, I mean outside the issue of the government acting as an interloper, what ethical standard are you applying to the issue of a contract between a man and a women, as opposed to any other parties??
If a man and woman choose to marry, and local regulation of marriage awards them greater legal benefits than two men (or two women) who choose a civil union, or two individuals choosing to live together, what standard of liberty or morality is being violated? Why specifically should a contractual arrangement between a man and woman that is unique to other combinations of gender or commitment, not exist in a fms??
As to your other point, are you asking ‘what’s so wrong with having marriage be only between men and women?’ Well, it’s a civil rights issue. In the 60’s, people asked a similar question, ‘what’s so wrong with having marriage be only between same-race couples?’ This has probably been discussed here before, but here are my thoughts: Just like the department of agriculture says, ‘This is the right way to eat’ and points to an outdated food pyramid that was created in the interest of farmers and not nutrition, marriage says, ‘This is the right sort of relationship’ and points to a straight, married couple.
PS: Posted this before I saw your response, but my answer would have been about the same.
As to your other point, are you asking ‘what’s so wrong with having marriage be only between men and women?’ Well, it’s a civil rights issue…
But we have agreed to eliminate government, i.e. civil rights… My question to you is, what specific ethical/moral standard (other than one imposed by government in the form of civil rights) are you using to support the premise that a contract between two genders who agree to live together till death do they part, must carry the same legal weight as a contract between the same gender, or no contract at all?
If you want government out of consensual relationships, why do you rely on “civil rights” to justify your position?