Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

On Marriage

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 12:11:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here are just some thoughts I had today on marriage. They aren't particularly well organized nor is there a central point.

Marriage is a very noble path to take in life, and it is also one of the most difficult. Marriage should never be downgraded or thought of as less noble than other paths to take in life (such as being a single person who is a missionary and focuses their time on helping the poor) simply because it is a common path to take. The problem society is facing is that people do not understand the importance of marriage. The greatest thing a child can have is to be raised by his/her mother and father in a stable home where they are deeply loved and cared for. The future of society is heavily dependent on how children are raised. It is extraordinarily important that children are raised in stable homes where they are loved. One problem is that people who get married focus so much on their significant other that children are often neglected. Marriage has stopped being about children and the family, and only about a consensual relationship with government benefits. This view is extremely dangerous, because it neglects the very people who are going to lead society in the future. Divorce is destroying society. Countless children are suffering so deeply because their parents have failed to love each other and have often consequently failed to love their children. People must understand that that emotional state of love newly married couples are in is temporary. Once the emotion fades many married couples realize that they were never with someone they truly love, only someone they felt they loved. There is a certain amount of immaturity in the situation. People are making very important life choices based merely on an emotion. When someone gets married, they need to make sure that they truly love this person, and that they will continue to love this person throughout the most difficult of times. Couples fail to analyze their relationships deeply and look ahead to see if it will truly work out. Marriage is tough. It really is. We need people who have carefully thought about their relationship and its future. We need people who are willing to love each other and their children through thick and thin. Because let me tell you, just one marriage like this can lead to prosperity for generations. My grandpa and grandma are two people I greatly admire. They are strong Catholics and have loved each other and their children all of their lives. The consequence was that their children (my 4 uncles and 1 aunt) have also learned to love others. And when my 4 uncles got married and they had children and wives that they loved and cared for deeply, their children also learned how to love. And when their children (my cousins) got married, they had the example of how to have a successful marriage, so they love their spouses and children deeply. We need people to step up and show society what a good marriage is, because our society is being torn apart by failed relationships. Marriage is not selfish. it is not about the happiness you receive, it is about loving your spouse and children deeply (and trust me, your own personal happiness will come about from this).

Thank you to anyone who took the time to read this block of text. I didn't really plan to write this, I just did somewhat spontaneously, so I apologize if my writing isn't exactly a literary masterpiece. As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 5:59:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 12:11:11 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Here are just some thoughts I had today on marriage. They aren't particularly well organized nor is there a central point.

Marriage is a very noble path to take in life, and it is also one of the most difficult.

I agree. Dealing with another person over a very long period of time, and incurring the liability associated with marriage, is an incredibly difficult thing to do.

Marriage should never be downgraded or thought of as less noble than other paths to take in life (such as being a single person who is a missionary and focuses their time on helping the poor) simply because it is a common path to take.

I don't know why people would say otherwise...

The problem society is facing is that people do not understand the importance of marriage.

I agree.

The greatest thing a child can have is to be raised by his/her mother and father in a stable home where they are deeply loved and cared for.

That, I don't agree with. The greatest familial environment that a child can have is one that is at once sufficiently supportive and challenging that s/he grows up to be a well adjusted and productive member of society. A mom and a dad are not necessary for that.

The future of society is heavily dependent on how children are raised.

I completely agree.

It is extraordinarily important that children are raised in stable homes where they are loved.

The home needs only to be "stable enough." It doesn't have to be perfectly stable, and tensions over time are good in the long run because they teach kids how to deal with problems.

One problem is that people who get married focus so much on their significant other that children are often neglected.

In the culture I was raised in, that was almost never the case. It is, however, reasonably common in the United Kingdom and certain countries in Europe (except Germany and to a lesser degree, France). Germans, however, I think are on balance the best parents

Marriage has stopped being about children and the family, and only about a consensual relationship with government benefits.

Marriage has always entailed some sort of governmental recognition. The fact that a group of people who were previously denied equal protection under the law now enjoy such protections does not change what marriage is "about."

You're also -subtly- hinting at a teleological idea of what marriage "is." The problem is that what "marriage is about" is a normative question, not a positive one; meaning that we can't say what marriage "is" because it's not a factual question. We can describe, factually, what norms some people hold with regard to marriage, but the broader question of what marriage "is" is necessarily subjective. That is not, however, to denigrate the significance of the question of what marriage is about.

This view is extremely dangerous, because it neglects the very people who are going to lead society in the future. Divorce is destroying society.

Straight people divorce far more often than gay people. That means that if marriage is being destroyed, and divorce destroys marriage, then straight people are a more proximate cause of marriage's destruction than gay people.

Countless children are suffering so deeply because their parents have failed to love each other and have often consequently failed to love their children.

I disagree with that, too. Divorce is something that catholic theology teaches is unquestionably unacceptable; the kind of thing that is not far away in terms of the act's moral gravity from murder (although that's tangential to the point I'm about to make).

There are times when people grow apart, and they grow apart for reasons that produce irreconcilable differences between them, or, in the alternative, sometimes how to raise kids is a fault line on that point. I know one mom who divorced her husband for wanting to kick their gay son out of the house at 16. That would be an instance of a parent putting what is right by their kid above their spouse which necessitated divorce. (The husband got utterly shafted in terms of the divorce terms, as well, and rightfully so.)

The point here is that whether divorce is the right thing to do, or not, depends more on the individual facts and circumstances surrounding a couple's relationship rather than hard and fast ideas about divorce being an objectively bad thing -like you're doing. There are cases where people get divorced over stupid reasons (like adultery), but there are other times when a divorce comes far too late (like one spouse is abusing illegal drugs and starts beating the wife and kids when he hits a low).

It just depends on the individual circumstance.

People must understand that that emotional state of love newly married couples are in is temporary. Once the emotion fades many married couples realize that they were never with someone they truly love, only someone they felt they loved. There is a certain amount of immaturity in the situation. People are making very important life choices based merely on an emotion. When someone gets married, they need to make sure that they truly love this person, and that they will continue to love this person throughout the most difficult of times. Couples fail to analyze their relationships deeply and look ahead to see if it will truly work out.

Emotion isn't the issue; it's the attitude of "disposability" that people bring to marriage, such that people would replace their husband or wife as easily as they would replace an old car.
Tsar of DDO
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 7:55:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 5:59:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:11:11 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Here are just some thoughts I had today on marriage. They aren't particularly well organized nor is there a central point.
The greatest thing a child can have is to be raised by his/her mother and father in a stable home where they are deeply loved and cared for.

That, I don't agree with. The greatest familial environment that a child can have is one that is at once sufficiently supportive and challenging that s/he grows up to be a well adjusted and productive member of society. A mom and a dad are not necessary for that.

I believe a child is entitled to be united to their mother and father. This is partly because children have a biological desire to be with their natural parents and because it also puts accountability on people to not have careless sex which results in unwanted pregnancy. However, I do agree that children ought to live in an environment where they face challenges that will allow them to grow up to be well rounded and well prepared for problems they will face as adults. Of course, such challenges can exist even within stable homes.

The home needs only to be "stable enough." It doesn't have to be perfectly stable, and tensions over time are good in the long run because they teach kids how to deal with problems.

I agree.

In the culture I was raised in, that was almost never the case. It is, however, reasonably common in the United Kingdom and certain countries in Europe (except Germany and to a lesser degree, France). Germans, however, I think are on balance the best parents

in a society which greatly promotes casual sex using birth control and allows women to get an abortion if unwanted occurs is also a society which, although not obviously, promotes a culture that focuses only on the people within the relationship and not on any offspring that they may reproduce.

Marriage has always entailed some sort of governmental recognition. The fact that a group of people who were previously denied equal protection under the law now enjoy such protections does not change what marriage is "about."

What I posted above is what I believe marriage the nature of marriage is, and the nature of marriage does not change based on public opinion.

Also, marriage does not need government recognition to be marriage. You are probably already familiar with my view. I believe that marriage is a common good, and that the government promotes this good by recognizing it and giving these unions benefits.

You're also -subtly- hinting at a teleological idea of what marriage "is."

Well here is me not so subtly stating that I believe marriage has an objective nature.

The problem is that what "marriage is about" is a normative question, not a positive one; meaning that we can't say what marriage "is" because it's not a factual question. We can describe, factually, what norms some people hold with regard to marriage, but the broader question of what marriage "is" is necessarily subjective. That is not, however, to denigrate the significance of the question of what marriage is about.

I think its obvious that we will have to disagree on whether the nature of marriage is objective or subjective, but we do generally agree on the importance of marriage in society. I think that if marriage is redefined, then it does indeed lose its significance in society. However, marriage, as defined between a man and a woman which naturally brings about children to be loved and cared for by their mother and father, will never lose its significance, whether such a definition is highly regarded by the public or not.

Straight people divorce far more often than gay people. That means that if marriage is being destroyed, and divorce destroys marriage, then straight people are a more proximate cause of marriage's destruction than gay people.

This seemed like a kind of random statement, but here are a couple problems with it.

a) Considering there is a far larger amount of publicly recognized straight couples than gay couples, it would seem difficult to compare the two relationships in terms of successful marriages.

b) Even if it was somehow proven that straight couples do have a higher divorce rate than gay couples, it wouldn't matter because divorce rates would only exist accidentally among straight couples, and straight couples would not be naturally prone to divorce.

c) According to my view of marriage, only heterosexual couples actually constitute a marriage since a family can only naturally come about through this relationship. So even if heterosexual unions had a higher divorce rate, other relationships still could not, even in principle, constitute a marriage simply because they have no natural means to produce children.

There are times when people grow apart, and they grow apart for reasons that produce irreconcilable differences between them, or, in the alternative, sometimes how to raise kids is a fault line on that point. I know one mom who divorced her husband for wanting to kick their gay son out of the house at 16. That would be an instance of a parent putting what is right by their kid above their spouse which necessitated divorce. (The husband got utterly shafted in terms of the divorce terms, as well, and rightfully so.)

This is a case where couples, before they are married, need to figure out each other's values and put themselves in hypothetical situations to test their compatibility. It is crucial that every couple do this before they get married, or else situations like this may very likely arise.

The point here is that whether divorce is the right thing to do, or not, depends more on the individual facts and circumstances surrounding a couple's relationship rather than hard and fast ideas about divorce being an objectively bad thing -like you're doing. There are cases where people get divorced over stupid reasons (like adultery), but there are other times when a divorce comes far too late (like one spouse is abusing illegal drugs and starts beating the wife and kids when he hits a low).

I am certainly not saying that divorce cannot be appropriate, because sometimes it can be. My point is that divorce comes about because couples fail to understand the thoughts, feelings, values, etc. of their significant other before they decide to spend the rest of their life with them and have children with them. I do believe that divorce needs to be avoided at all costs, and should only come about in extreme circumstances.

It just depends on the individual circumstance.

People must understand that that emotional state of love newly married couples are in is temporary. Once the emotion fades many married couples realize that they were never with someone they truly love, only someone they felt they loved. There is a certain amount of immaturity in the situation. People are making very important life choices based merely on an emotion. When someone gets married, they need to make sure that they truly love this person, and that they will continue to love this person throughout the most difficult of times. Couples fail to analyze their relationships deeply and look ahead to see if it will truly work out.

Emotion isn't the issue; it's the attitude of "disposability" that people bring to marriage, such that people would replace their husband or wife as easily as they would replace an old car.

I absolutely agree. Although I still think that couples focus so much on their emotional state at the time that they are surprised when it eventually fades away, and then they have no reason to want to be with their spouse.
Nolite Timere
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 7:55:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that a big issue which contributes to this is the commodification of love. We don't see love as a deep emotional attachment anymore, or even as a dedication to rearing children despite differences. It's seen as a social rite of passage, and the spouse is seen as a status symbol. Part of this is that an ideal of physical beauty has been adopted as a requirement for love. In the past, ideal beauty was seen as an artistic pursuit, not as the standard by which the person whom you will be spending the rest of your life with will be measured against. The fact that people have absurd checklists of physical attributes made up for any prospective spouses epitomizes the replacement of actual emotional attachment with a conditioned response to arbitrary physical characteristics. And that is what our current idea of worthiness for love and affection are founded on: conditioning. That's all that beauty is, folks. It's not an actual objective characteristic, it's a set of characteristics which, at least in America, are pervasively paired with sexual stimulation to illicit a conditioned response to those attributes, and to contribute to an societal expectation that these features be maintained. Hence the neurotic habit which Western women have of actually painting on a different face every morning, of starving themselves into the grave, of continuing to inhale carcinogens everyday out of the crippling fear that they might put on a few pounds and slip out of that category which society arbitrarily deems to be worthy of love. We are every bit as fvcked up as the Chinese people who bound and crippled the feet of their daughters because it was considered beautiful, we are just numb to how ridiculous the expectations which we face actually are.

And not to ignore this problem with men (because it is a problem with them as well), but it is exponentially worse when it comes to women. And it is no wonder that the institution of marriage is in such shambles when this is the foundation on which it is built.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 3:33:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 5:59:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/19/2015 12:11:11 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Here are just some thoughts I had today on marriage. They aren't particularly well organized nor is there a central point.

Marriage is a very noble path to take in life, and it is also one of the most difficult.

I agree. Dealing with another person over a very long period of time, and incurring the liability associated with marriage, is an incredibly difficult thing to do.

Marriage should never be downgraded or thought of as less noble than other paths to take in life (such as being a single person who is a missionary and focuses their time on helping the poor) simply because it is a common path to take.

I don't know why people would say otherwise...

The problem society is facing is that people do not understand the importance of marriage.

I agree.

The greatest thing a child can have is to be raised by his/her mother and father in a stable home where they are deeply loved and cared for.

That, I don't agree with. The greatest familial environment that a child can have is one that is at once sufficiently supportive and challenging that s/he grows up to be a well adjusted and productive member of society. A mom and a dad are not necessary for that.

The future of society is heavily dependent on how children are raised.

I completely agree.

It is extraordinarily important that children are raised in stable homes where they are loved.

The home needs only to be "stable enough." It doesn't have to be perfectly stable, and tensions over time are good in the long run because they teach kids how to deal with problems.

One problem is that people who get married focus so much on their significant other that children are often neglected.

In the culture I was raised in, that was almost never the case. It is, however, reasonably common in the United Kingdom and certain countries in Europe (except Germany and to a lesser degree, France). Germans, however, I think are on balance the best parents

Marriage has stopped being about children and the family, and only about a consensual relationship with government benefits.

Marriage has always entailed some sort of governmental recognition. The fact that a group of people who were previously denied equal protection under the law now enjoy such protections does not change what marriage is "about."

You're also -subtly- hinting at a teleological idea of what marriage "is." The problem is that what "marriage is about" is a normative question, not a positive one; meaning that we can't say what marriage "is" because it's not a factual question. We can describe, factually, what norms some people hold with regard to marriage, but the broader question of what marriage "is" is necessarily subjective. That is not, however, to denigrate the significance of the question of what marriage is about.

This view is extremely dangerous, because it neglects the very people who are going to lead society in the future. Divorce is destroying society.

Straight people divorce far more often than gay people. That means that if marriage is being destroyed, and divorce destroys marriage, then straight people are a more proximate cause of marriage's destruction than gay people.

Countless children are suffering so deeply because their parents have failed to love each other and have often consequently failed to love their children.

I disagree with that, too. Divorce is something that catholic theology teaches is unquestionably unacceptable; the kind of thing that is not far away in terms of the act's moral gravity from murder (although that's tangential to the point I'm about to make).

There are times when people grow apart, and they grow apart for reasons that produce irreconcilable differences between them, or, in the alternative, sometimes how to raise kids is a fault line on that point. I know one mom who divorced her husband for wanting to kick their gay son out of the house at 16. That would be an instance of a parent putting what is right by their kid above their spouse which necessitated divorce. (The husband got utterly shafted in terms of the divorce terms, as well, and rightfully so.)

The point here is that whether divorce is the right thing to do, or not, depends more on the individual facts and circumstances surrounding a couple's relationship rather than hard and fast ideas about divorce being an objectively bad thing -like you're doing. There are cases where people get divorced over stupid reasons (like adultery), but there are other times when a divorce comes far too late (like one spouse is abusing illegal drugs and starts beating the wife and kids when he hits a low).

It just depends on the individual circumstance.

People must understand that that emotional state of love newly married couples are in is temporary. Once the emotion fades many married couples realize that they were never with someone they truly love, only someone they felt they loved. There is a certain amount of immaturity in the situation. People are making very important life choices based merely on an emotion. When someone gets married, they need to make sure that they truly love this person, and that they will continue to love this person throughout the most difficult of times. Couples fail to analyze their relationships deeply and look ahead to see if it will truly work out.

Emotion isn't the issue; it's the attitude of "disposability" that people bring to marriage, such that people would replace their husband or wife as easily as they would replace an old car.

^^This
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 4:17:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 5:59:01 PM, YYW wrote:


There are times when people grow apart, and they grow apart for reasons that produce irreconcilable differences between them, or, in the alternative, sometimes how to raise kids is a fault line on that point. I know one mom who divorced her husband for wanting to kick their gay son out of the house at 16. That would be an instance of a parent putting what is right by their kid above their spouse which necessitated divorce. (The husband got utterly shafted in terms of the divorce terms, as well, and rightfully so.)

The point here is that whether divorce is the right thing to do, or not, depends more on the individual facts and circumstances surrounding a couple's relationship rather than hard and fast ideas about divorce being an objectively bad thing -like you're doing. There are cases where people get divorced over stupid reasons (like adultery), but there are other times when a divorce comes far too late (like one spouse is abusing illegal drugs and starts beating the wife and kids when he hits a low).

I agree that divorce isn't objectively bad - there are some cases where it is justified (such as your example of drug and domestic abuse or maybe adultery). However , the problem remains that most cases of divorce are just cases where the couple divorce out of petty reasons such as 'irreconcilable differences' or 'growing apart'. These divorces are bad for both society and children, since in most cases the marital problems could have been solved. There are a plethora of reasons why these divorces are bad, including the wealth for evidence that it harms children as well as the weakening effect on marriage as a whole - if so many people divorce at some point, young people will fail to see the value or significance of marriage. It also encourages couples experiencing marital problems to consider divorce as an option, since it becomes more of a 'normal' thing to do.


Emotion isn't the issue; it's the attitude of "disposability" that people bring to marriage, such that people would replace their husband or wife as easily as they would replace an old car.

Couldn't agree more.

At 7/19/2015 7:55:51 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that a big issue which contributes to this is the commodification of love. We don't see love as a deep emotional attachment anymore, or even as a dedication to rearing children despite differences. It's seen as a social rite of passage, and the spouse is seen as a status symbol. Part of this is that an ideal of physical beauty has been adopted as a requirement for love. In the past, ideal beauty was seen as an artistic pursuit, not as the standard by which the person whom you will be spending the rest of your life with will be measured against. The fact that people have absurd checklists of physical attributes made up for any prospective spouses epitomizes the replacement of actual emotional attachment with a conditioned response to arbitrary physical characteristics.

Agreed, it is self-defeating to pledge to stay with one person for the rest of your life (around 60 years), based on the fact that they are physically attractive for perhaps the next 20 years at most. Once the beauty has age away, you'll wish you married someone who you love as a person - not as a physical body.

Also, there's a phenemonenon where, if you like someone's personality, you begin to find them more physically attractive because you'll look for attractive aspects of them. So it's win-win if you base who you marry on personality instead of purely physical beauty.

And that is what our current idea of worthiness for love and affection are founded on: conditioning. That's all that beauty is, folks. It's not an actual objective characteristic, it's a set of characteristics which, at least in America, are pervasively paired with sexual stimulation to illicit a conditioned response to those attributes, and to contribute to an societal expectation that these features be maintained.

This is where I disagree. Most of our criteria for physical beauty has an evolutionary basis. Think about it; a six-pack and large arms is attractive in a man because women biologically expect a strong, healthy man to give her strong offspring and protect her during motherhood. Likewise, a curvy figure and large breasts are attractive in men because they are signs that she will be most able to cope with childbirth and consequent breastfeeding.

Hence the neurotic habit which Western women have of actually painting on a different face every morning, of starving themselves into the grave, of continuing to inhale carcinogens everyday out of the crippling fear that they might put on a few pounds and slip out of that category which society arbitrarily deems to be worthy of love.

It's not a social construct. Again, having glowing and healthy-looking skin is a sign of good health, so our evolutionary development had lead us to be attractive to this trait. If makeup can simulate this trait, then men will naturally be more attracted to women who use make-up. Consequently, women are being prudent in wearing makeup.

But in regards to smoking and eating-disorders. That's what they are: disorders. And they are misguided in thinking that being a stick is attractive to most men.

We are every bit as fvcked up as the Chinese people who bound and crippled the feet of their daughters because it was considered beautiful, we are just numb to how ridiculous the expectations which we face actually are.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 4:05:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 12:11:11 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Here are just some thoughts I had today on marriage. They aren't particularly well organized nor is there a central point.

Marriage is a very noble path to take in life, and it is also one of the most difficult. Marriage should never be downgraded or thought of as less noble than other paths to take in life (such as being a single person who is a missionary and focuses their time on helping the poor) simply because it is a common path to take. The problem society is facing is that people do not understand the importance of marriage. The greatest thing a child can have is to be raised by his/her mother and father in a stable home where they are deeply loved and cared for. The future of society is heavily dependent on how children are raised. It is extraordinarily important that children are raised in stable homes where they are loved. One problem is that people who get married focus so much on their significant other that children are often neglected. Marriage has stopped being about children and the family, and only about a consensual relationship with government benefits. This view is extremely dangerous, because it neglects the very people who are going to lead society in the future. Divorce is destroying society. Countless children are suffering so deeply because their parents have failed to love each other and have often consequently failed to love their children. People must understand that that emotional state of love newly married couples are in is temporary. Once the emotion fades many married couples realize that they were never with someone they truly love, only someone they felt they loved. There is a certain amount of immaturity in the situation. People are making very important life choices based merely on an emotion. When someone gets married, they need to make sure that they truly love this person, and that they will continue to love this person throughout the most difficult of times. Couples fail to analyze their relationships deeply and look ahead to see if it will truly work out. Marriage is tough. It really is. We need people who have carefully thought about their relationship and its future. We need people who are willing to love each other and their children through thick and thin. Because let me tell you, just one marriage like this can lead to prosperity for generations. My grandpa and grandma are two people I greatly admire. They are strong Catholics and have loved each other and their children all of their lives. The consequence was that their children (my 4 uncles and 1 aunt) have also learned to love others. And when my 4 uncles got married and they had children and wives that they loved and cared for deeply, their children also learned how to love. And when their children (my cousins) got married, they had the example of how to have a successful marriage, so they love their spouses and children deeply. We need people to step up and show society what a good marriage is, because our society is being torn apart by failed relationships. Marriage is not selfish. it is not about the happiness you receive, it is about loving your spouse and children deeply (and trust me, your own personal happiness will come about from this).

Thank you to anyone who took the time to read this block of text. I didn't really plan to write this, I just did somewhat spontaneously, so I apologize if my writing isn't exactly a literary masterpiece. As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.

Well, in summation, it seems as though you feel that a lack of commitment is endemic in this society, resulting in a failed familial structure centered in the dissolution of marriage.

I'm not saying that to say it "better," just more succinctly, for the sake of ensuring that I understand where you're coming from.

So, if that is in fact what you're saying --

I don't know that I entirely agree with that. I mean, sure, I agree to an extent, but not entirely. I think the biggest reason that marriages don't work is because of people's personalities, mostly.

What I mean by that is, I'm sure many marriages, even most marriages, start out with a legitimate assessment of how much they *love* someone or how committed they are to that person. I don't know what makes you think that marriage *eventually* becomes difficult, but marriage is difficult from the start. Hell, relationships that precede them are difficult. So, to get as far as marriage in the first place is getting pretty damn far in its own right.

Past that, though, you have the fundamental personalities of each individual that may manifest only after marriage, or to a degree that is insufferable only after marriage. Say, a man who seems a little tempermental who becomes abusive, or a woman who seems fashionable, who is actually a fiscal disaster. Then, of course, there's those with dark secrets or weird sexual kinks that their partner can't get over. Can't have children? Well, that's often a deal breaker, but many people will wait until the knot is triple-tied before they let that get out, attempting to trap the person in a relationship, so he or she isn't rejected anymore, or has a chance at lifelong companionship.

Then, of course, there's the fact that people change. They just do. Sometimes for better, just as often for worse, and they may outgrow the person they're with (or the person they're with may leave them behind). This can cause all manner of problems, often resulting in divorce.

I can tell you from experience that with age, honest becomes a lot easier -- even irresistible, at times. But, that's not always okay. What if one of your cousins or aunties or whatever married a successful musician? And, he's totally awesome and completely cool and everything until they have a daughter together, and once she's 12, he makes this song with her? https://www.youtube.com...

I'm sorry, but, that's totally grounds for divorce, among other things.

This is all not to mention the fact that our society is in flux due to a growing paradigm shift away from traditional gender roles and social cues. No does mean "maybe" or "try harder" anymore. Annoyance isn't a viable cause for a slap (or punch) in the face anymore. Women can become increasingly successful and powerful, often intimidating their mates, or giving their mates a sense of emasculation (wrongly).

I think that our current marriage situation is just our society's growing pains. Still in its adolescence, it's just figuring out who and what it is. That's likely also why it shouts, fights, and experiments so much, as well.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:41:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 4:17:00 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/19/2015 5:59:01 PM, YYW wrote:

And that is what our current idea of worthiness for love and affection are founded on: conditioning. That's all that beauty is, folks. It's not an actual objective characteristic, it's a set of characteristics which, at least in America, are pervasively paired with sexual stimulation to illicit a conditioned response to those attributes, and to contribute to an societal expectation that these features be maintained.

This is where I disagree. Most of our criteria for physical beauty has an evolutionary basis. Think about it; a six-pack and large arms is attractive in a man because women biologically expect a strong, healthy man to give her strong offspring and protect her during motherhood. Likewise, a curvy figure and large breasts are attractive in men because they are signs that she will be most able to cope with childbirth and consequent breastfeeding.

But this is all cultural. There are cultures where overweight people are seen as attractive; in our current culture skinny is seen as more beautiful than curvy by a lot of people because of marketing campaigns by the fashion industry. And facial features are entirely subjective. I mean, if you look at the Venus de Milo, really look at her, and picture a young woman with her shape and features graduating a modern high school, she would be seen as a mildly comely farm girl type, not a paragon of beauty.

Hence the neurotic habit which Western women have of actually painting on a different face every morning, of starving themselves into the grave, of continuing to inhale carcinogens everyday out of the crippling fear that they might put on a few pounds and slip out of that category which society arbitrarily deems to be worthy of love.

It's not a social construct. Again, having glowing and healthy-looking skin is a sign of good health, so our evolutionary development had lead us to be attractive to this trait. If makeup can simulate this trait, then men will naturally be more attracted to women who use make-up. Consequently, women are being prudent in wearing makeup.

Most women don't wear makeup just for cover-up reasons, they are painting on features like high cheekbones, defined facial structure, and larger eyes which they do not possess using shadow as an optical illusion.

But in regards to smoking and eating-disorders. That's what they are: disorders. And they are misguided in thinking that being a stick is attractive to most men.

Most men, when faced with a choice between the Venus de Milo and, say, Jessica Alba, would go with the latter. Sure, anorexia isn't seen as attractive, but anything but a tight midriff is seen as distinctly unappealing.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 8:31:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 12:11:11 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Here are just some thoughts I had today on marriage. They aren't particularly well organized nor is there a central point.

Marriage is a very noble path to take in life, and it is also one of the most difficult. Marriage should never be downgraded or thought of as less noble than other paths to take in life (such as being a single person who is a missionary and focuses their time on helping the poor) simply because it is a common path to take. The problem society is facing is that people do not understand the importance of marriage. The greatest thing a child can have is to be raised by his/her mother and father in a stable home where they are deeply loved and cared for. The future of society is heavily dependent on how children are raised. It is extraordinarily important that children are raised in stable homes where they are loved. One problem is that people who get married focus so much on their significant other that children are often neglected. Marriage has stopped being about children and the family, and only about a consensual relationship with government benefits. This view is extremely dangerous, because it neglects the very people who are going to lead society in the future. Divorce is destroying society. Countless children are suffering so deeply because their parents have failed to love each other and have often consequently failed to love their children. People must understand that that emotional state of love newly married couples are in is temporary. Once the emotion fades many married couples realize that they were never with someone they truly love, only someone they felt they loved. There is a certain amount of immaturity in the situation. People are making very important life choices based merely on an emotion. When someone gets married, they need to make sure that they truly love this person, and that they will continue to love this person throughout the most difficult of times. Couples fail to analyze their relationships deeply and look ahead to see if it will truly work out. Marriage is tough. It really is. We need people who have carefully thought about their relationship and its future. We need people who are willing to love each other and their children through thick and thin. Because let me tell you, just one marriage like this can lead to prosperity for generations. My grandpa and grandma are two people I greatly admire. They are strong Catholics and have loved each other and their children all of their lives. The consequence was that their children (my 4 uncles and 1 aunt) have also learned to love others. And when my 4 uncles got married and they had children and wives that they loved and cared for deeply, their children also learned how to love. And when their children (my cousins) got married, they had the example of how to have a successful marriage, so they love their spouses and children deeply. We need people to step up and show society what a good marriage is, because our society is being torn apart by failed relationships. Marriage is not selfish. it is not about the happiness you receive, it is about loving your spouse and children deeply (and trust me, your own personal happiness will come about from this).

Thank you to anyone who took the time to read this block of text. I didn't really plan to write this, I just did somewhat spontaneously, so I apologize if my writing isn't exactly a literary masterpiece. As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.

Agreed. Great post. And it helps explain why I am against Gay Marriage. I think it degrades, diminishes the traidtional concept, the one you described. Let the gays and the Lesbians live together if they must. But I dont want them to be legalized or justified by my Government. And I dont want them married in my Church. Or any Church. Im not a biblical literalist so Imnot going to cite the Scripture that condemns Gay Marriage, but I do feel it is amoral and does not belong in Church. Let them begin their own Religion...the Rainbow Church or whatever!
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 2:08:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 8:31:13 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Agreed. Great post. And it helps explain why I am against Gay Marriage. I think it degrades, diminishes the traidtional concept, the one you described. Let the gays and the Lesbians live together if they must. But I dont want them to be legalized or justified by my Government. And I dont want them married in my Church. Or any Church. Im not a biblical literalist so Imnot going to cite the Scripture that condemns Gay Marriage, but I do feel it is amoral and does not belong in Church. Let them begin their own Religion...the Rainbow Church or whatever!

I still don't understand why people think it's anyone's business what people do with their sex lives.

Like, the Bible also condemns sex out of wedlock. So, do you think that people who have had premarital sex shouldn't be married? How about divorcees? Should they get married in "your" church?

Such hypocrisy.

I don't understand why people are so caught up with being exclusionary. Why don't we dedicate all this time and energy to making things work as they are, rather than telling people that you don't like who they are, and what you think should and shouldn't be done based on their characteristics?
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 3:21:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 2:08:24 PM, Such wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:31:13 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Agreed. Great post. And it helps explain why I am against Gay Marriage. I think it degrades, diminishes the traidtional concept, the one you described. Let the gays and the Lesbians live together if they must. But I dont want them to be legalized or justified by my Government. And I dont want them married in my Church. Or any Church. Im not a biblical literalist so Imnot going to cite the Scripture that condemns Gay Marriage, but I do feel it is amoral and does not belong in Church. Let them begin their own Religion...the Rainbow Church or whatever!

I still don't understand why people think it's anyone's business what people do with their sex lives.

Like, the Bible also condemns sex out of wedlock. So, do you think that people who have had premarital sex shouldn't be married? How about divorcees? Should they get married in "your" church?

Such hypocrisy.

I don't understand why people are so caught up with being exclusionary. Why don't we dedicate all this time and energy to making things work as they are, rather than telling people that you don't like who they are, and what you think should and shouldn't be done based on their characteristics?

Out of wedlock sex is OK by me. I engaged in it many times in the past. So are divorced folks getting married in my church. Or any Church. These people dont engage in aberrant sexual behavior. And hell, let the Gays have sex all they want. I just. Dont. Want. Them. Married. In My. Church. Cant make it any simpler than that, brother.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 3:33:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 3:21:09 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/26/2015 2:08:24 PM, Such wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:31:13 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Agreed. Great post. And it helps explain why I am against Gay Marriage. I think it degrades, diminishes the traidtional concept, the one you described. Let the gays and the Lesbians live together if they must. But I dont want them to be legalized or justified by my Government. And I dont want them married in my Church. Or any Church. Im not a biblical literalist so Imnot going to cite the Scripture that condemns Gay Marriage, but I do feel it is amoral and does not belong in Church. Let them begin their own Religion...the Rainbow Church or whatever!

I still don't understand why people think it's anyone's business what people do with their sex lives.

Like, the Bible also condemns sex out of wedlock. So, do you think that people who have had premarital sex shouldn't be married? How about divorcees? Should they get married in "your" church?

Such hypocrisy.

I don't understand why people are so caught up with being exclusionary. Why don't we dedicate all this time and energy to making things work as they are, rather than telling people that you don't like who they are, and what you think should and shouldn't be done based on their characteristics?

Out of wedlock sex is OK by me. I engaged in it many times in the past. So are divorced folks getting married in my church. Or any Church. These people dont engage in aberrant sexual behavior. And hell, let the Gays have sex all they want. I just. Dont. Want. Them. Married. In My. Church. Cant make it any simpler than that, brother.

Buuuuut, sex out of wedlock is every bit as "aberrant" according to the Bible, and divorcing, then having sex with someone else (even post remarriage) is considered adultery, which is a breach of the Ten Commandments.

Sooooo, essentially, you're just a hypocritical bigot, is what it sounds like to me.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 7:22:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Marriage has always entailed some sort of governmental recognition. "

So should we add marriage to the list of things that can't exists without government, like roads, money, schools, etc?

"Marriage is a formal, public institution that only the government can grant"
Andrew Sullivan, a leading gay marriage advocate

"In the early Middle Ages all that marriage implied in the eyes of the laity seems to have been a private contract between two families. " For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals, enforced by the community sense of what was right."
Family Scholar Lawrence Stone

The first government involvement in Marriage was with the Earl of Hardwicke"s Marriage Act of 1753
https://en.wikipedia.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 10:05:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
On State Marriage


xXCryptoXx: Here are just some thoughts I had today on marriage. They aren't particularly well organized nor is there a central point. Marriage is a very noble path to take in life, and it is also one of the most difficult.

The Fool: I believe people should try to work out the relationships, perhaps harder than they have been, but let's be honest, "state marriage" is nothing but at best ceremonial, and on average much more distant mental for the heterosexual man, and has no practical benefit for men.

For women, marriage guarantees them financial support from their husbands for the rest of their lives, but for a man it guarantees absolutely nothing, and is likely to lead to destitution for men in the long run, as women are motivated to divorce men late in life, when the children are raised, since a woman would still get paid the alimony and provide no service in return, and perhaps even receive money from a new boyfriend or husband, at the same time. Therefore society is organized in a way to give motivation for women to leave the relationship later in life, leaving the man at the mercy of their wives later in life.

xXCryptoXx: Marriage should never be downgraded or thought of as less noble than other paths to take in life (such as being a single person who is a missionary and focuses their time on helping the poor) simply because it is a common path to take.

The Fool: You can still be with somebody and I would argue get "married", with perhaps your own ritual, and make your own vows and your own promises to each other, but I don't see how a superficial "state marriage" is good for men in any way.

xXCryptoXx: The problem society is facing is that people do not understand the importance of marriage.

The Fool: "State marriage" has no longer has a practical function. The purpose of marriage was to keep families together, which was once the building block of society, and thus kept society together. But with the decrease of gender roles, and thus the advent of divorce, (especially no-fault divorce), by virtue of couples no longer trading one service for they don't already have, we should expect gender relations to get worse than the already all-time worse that they are at now.

In Canada a man is considered automatically married (legal common-law) if they live with a woman for a certain number of months (I think it's less than a year), regardless of their consent, or vows, or promises, or anything, the government will "force marry" a man to woman to guarantee the woman half his belongings. Sure it CAN work the other way around, but women are encouraged to take a man for all he's worth, while it is considered shameful for a man to do the same, and it is very rare that the woman makes more money, as women tend to marry up.

I would argue that we need to move away from the state marriage, and move towards what common-law marriages used be considered. Common law married is when a couple decides they are married for themselves. It's not supposed to be government regulated, but in Canada a woman can claim to had been living with you like a wife, and thus get half your belongings, despite you not wanting to marry her..

Do you have a legitimate argument for "state marriage"? And why special privileges should be allotted for those who beg the state for permission to be married, creating limitations which were never there in the first place?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 12:15:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 10:05:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
On State Marriage


xXCryptoXx: Here are just some thoughts I had today on marriage. They aren't particularly well organized nor is there a central point. Marriage is a very noble path to take in life, and it is also one of the most difficult.

The Fool: I believe people should try to work out the relationships, perhaps harder than they have been, but let's be honest, "state marriage" is nothing but at best ceremonial, and on average much more distant mental for the heterosexual man, and has no practical benefit for men.

For women, marriage guarantees them financial support from their husbands for the rest of their lives, but for a man it guarantees absolutely nothing, and is likely to lead to destitution for men in the long run, as women are motivated to divorce men late in life, when the children are raised, since a woman would still get paid the alimony and provide no service in return, and perhaps even receive money from a new boyfriend or husband, at the same time. Therefore society is organized in a way to give motivation for women to leave the relationship later in life, leaving the man at the mercy of their wives later in life.

xXCryptoXx: Marriage should never be downgraded or thought of as less noble than other paths to take in life (such as being a single person who is a missionary and focuses their time on helping the poor) simply because it is a common path to take.

The Fool: You can still be with somebody and I would argue get "married", with perhaps your own ritual, and make your own vows and your own promises to each other, but I don't see how a superficial "state marriage" is good for men in any way.

xXCryptoXx: The problem society is facing is that people do not understand the importance of marriage.

The Fool: "State marriage" has no longer has a practical function. The purpose of marriage was to keep families together, which was once the building block of society, and thus kept society together. But with the decrease of gender roles, and thus the advent of divorce, (especially no-fault divorce), by virtue of couples no longer trading one service for they don't already have, we should expect gender relations to get worse than the already all-time worse that they are at now.

In Canada a man is considered automatically married (legal common-law) if they live with a woman for a certain number of months (I think it's less than a year), regardless of their consent, or vows, or promises, or anything, the government will "force marry" a man to woman to guarantee the woman half his belongings. Sure it CAN work the other way around, but women are encouraged to take a man for all he's worth, while it is considered shameful for a man to do the same, and it is very rare that the woman makes more money, as women tend to marry up.

I would argue that we need to move away from the state marriage, and move towards what common-law marriages used be considered. Common law married is when a couple decides they are married for themselves. It's not supposed to be government regulated, but in Canada a woman can claim to had been living with you like a wife, and thus get half your belongings, despite you not wanting to marry her..

Do you have a legitimate argument for "state marriage"? And why special privileges should be allotted for those who beg the state for permission to be married, creating limitations which were never there in the first place?

It's so interesting -- I like you, and enjoy reading your posts, but never agree with your conclusions.

Btw, are you an allusion to the brilliant Pocket?

In any case, all things stand except the conclusions -- with the consideration of emotions, attachment, and love, I feel as though marriage is validated. Clearly, there exists another dimension that allows it to exist in the first place, and renders such a cut-and-dry interpretation exhibited in the IP specious.