Amazon.com Widgets

As a husband do you love your wife? If so then state why...

Asked by: Jikpamu
  • Yes, I love my wife.

    Reasons why I love my wife:
    1) Loyal, Humble, Faithful
    2) My wife stuck by me and is still sticking by me despite hard times
    3) My wife loves me and is not afraid to both demonstrate it and exclaim it
    4) My wife is low maintenance and prudent: Proverbs 19:14
    5) My wife meets most of the qualifications of Proverbs 31:10-31
    6) My wife has dignity and is modest. She also has integrity.
    7) My wife cares for those around her including her family and mother
    8) My wife is not selfish
    9) My wife is my best friend
    10) The only one I love more in this world than my wife is my God (of the Bible)

  • Of course I love my wife.

    1. She is eternally kind, immensely brilliant, and faithful beyond measure.
    2. She is a creative genius and astounds me with everything she makes.
    3. She is humble, to a fault.
    4. She is a fierce and passionate warrior for equality.
    5. She is the most generous soul, always giving, always sacrificing for others.
    6. The woman can cook like a chef possessed.
    7. She is hilarious. Really, she makes me smile and laugh until my face hurts.
    8. She's so freaking hot. Incredibly hot. She has NO clue, which is even cuter.
    9. She is incredibly honest. So much so it is a burden for her at times. I envy and admire that aspect of her.
    10. She has an amazing taste in literature, television and video games, so we have endless hours of things to do together and share together.
    11. She is my partner, equal in all things. She helps guide me, when I've lost my moral compass, she helps calm me, when confrontations arise, she helps inspire me, when the world is pressing down and the weight of it all seems too much, she's always their to shoulder half of the burden.
    12. I am so proud of her, and so proud she chose me as her partner.

    I love her with all of my heart.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Free_Th1nker says2014-07-14T04:49:57.960
Marriage is not an institution of love.
YamaVonKarma says2014-07-14T05:16:08.770
I'll get back to ya in a few years maybe.
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-14T16:42:56.777
My marriage is an institution of love.
Jikpamu says2014-07-14T17:20:27.737
The only one who I am commanded to love more than my wife is God...Aside from God (Jesus) my wife is the most important person to me.
Free_Th1nker says2014-07-14T17:29:21.287
@the_immortal_emris. Marriage is not an institution of love. If it was, all forms of love (Homosexuality, polygamy) would be allowed to practice it. Furthermore, divorce rates in the USA are 50%, 67%, and 74% for first marriages, second marriages, and third marriages respectively. The only rational for people to get married in the USA is for the benefits.
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-14T18:52:22.753
I have no issue with same sex marriage, which is legal in many states and will be universally legal within a decade, and polygamy is legal in many countries, so clearly, by your own definition, marriage is an institution of love.

Divorce rates do not indicate marriage is not an institution of love, as people can fall out of love due to extenuating circumstances. You're trying to argue correlation as causation.

People don't get married for benefits, though they do enjoy them once they have them. People get married because society pressures them to do so, because they love one another, or because they parented a child.
Free_Th1nker says2014-07-14T19:04:06.117
Marriage is not an institution of love. The only rational reason to get married in the United States is for the benefits. It is irrational to do anything under social pressure. It is irrational to conceive that people cannot be in love without the institution of marriage. Love can exist without marriage; marriage can exist without love. But, of course, a majority of married couples who do not file for divorce are in love.

My point was focus on the United States, where polygamous marriage is prohibited nationwide. I do not argue that marriage is an institution of love in other countries, it probably is. Additionally, homosexuality will not be legalized in Texas within the decade. Texas Republicans promote "reparative therapy" over marriage equality.

Divorce rates certainly do indicate marriage is not an institution of love. If you get married because you're in love, you would not expect to see a rate so high.

If you remove the benefits from marriage in the United States, I do not doubt the rate of marriage would decline drastically. I will reiterate: the only RATIONAL reason to get married in the United States is for the 1,138 statutory provisions that are attached to marital status.
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-14T19:40:42.250
You're repeating yourself, we've already heard your opinion, incorrect though it may be, there is no need to say the same line twice.
"It is irrational to do anything under social pressure."

No, it's completely rational to do something due to pressure to conform. That's one of the many rationalizations people use. To say otherwise is silly and ignores the entirety of modern psychology.

Https://www3.Nd.Edu/~rwilliam/xsoc530/conformity.Html

" It is irrational to conceive that people cannot be in love without the institution of marriage."

You're right, which is why no one suggested this. I loved my wife for years before we got married. You're attempting to misrepresent my position. I do not argue that marriage is required for love, only that love is required for a healthy, successful marriage, regardless of the genders involved.

"My point was focus on the United States, where polygamous marriage is prohibited nationwide."

This doesn't really matter, as we are in the midst of a civil rights battle over the issue, so your appeal to tradition fallacy doesn't really hold much value for your argument.

Also, considering the existential nature of a discussion about the intricacies of love and marriage, one cannot confine their perspective to the corporeal laws in a single nation.

"I do not argue that marriage is an institution of love in other countries, it probably is."

Then you're admitting it is an institution of love, period. One cannot claim Americans do not marry for love, simply because we didn't explicitly allow same-sex marriage, as European nations operated under the same legal precedent, they just don't have as much rampant religious zealotry Americans suffer, and the scrutiny of the world media is not focused on those nations. You're projecting an anti-American sentiment with this silliness.

"Additionally, homosexuality will not be legalized in Texas within the decade."

Seeing as it is already completely legal, you would be incredibly wrong.

Until the U. S. Supreme Court in 2003 declared sodomy laws unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas, certain sexual acts between persons of the same sex were a criminal offense in Texas, termed "deviate sexual intercourse",[1] The offense was a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $500.[2] As of April 2011, Texas was one of the four states with statutes criminalizing same-sex sexual acts, along with Oklahoma, Kansas, and Montana.[3] The legislature has failed to act on several proposed bills that would repeal the Texas statute.

"Texas Republicans promote "reparative therapy" over marriage equality."

Some do, but they do not represent the whole of Texas, nor do they indicate a current trend, as they are mocked extensively.

"Divorce rates certainly do indicate marriage is not an institution of love."

No, they don't.

"If you get married because you're in love, you would not expect to see a rate so high."

According to whom?

Because financial struggles can strain the bonds of love. Because time wears away the depth of love, because love is not perfect, or unwavering. Because people can be selfish and still be in love, and can cause that love to flounder due to their inability to think in a non-egocentric way.

You can't prove anything about love and marriage by using divorce statistics, especially if you don't parse the data. You're using incomplete data to reinforce your bias. This is called confirmation bias. It is a logical fallacy.

"If you remove the benefits from marriage in the United States, I do not doubt the rate of marriage would decline drastically."

I sincerely doubt that, as we are a highly conservative nation. Most marry due to societal pressures far more than the small benefits a couple can receive. As a matter of fact, data indicates you're very incorrect, as most gay marriages did not offer benefits until late 2013, but gay people have been more than willing to marry out of love. Many states still do not offer benefits to gay couples, though they are legally able to marry. This indicates the institution is entirely one of love, not procreation, not benefits, not taxes, but love.

"I will reiterate: the only RATIONAL reason to get married in the United States is for the 1,138 statutory provisions that are attached to marital status."

You should probably google the word RATIONAL, as you don't seem to grasp its meaning.

'Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason.[1] Rationality implies the CONFORMITY OF ONE'S BELIEFS WITH ONE'S REASONS TO BELIEVE, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action.'

One could argue that love is not at all rational, so you're argument is incredibly silly. But if we assume rationality to mean the predictable and reasonable series of choices to transpire following a specified scenario, then we can say love begets marriage, thereby making marriage an institution of love.

The REASON people get married is not for the benefits you listed, which I wasn't even fully aware of as a married man. People get married because they are in love, because they convince themselves t hey are in love, (due to societal pressures) or they got pregnant, or got someone pregnant, but this again speaks to the pressures of society and extenuating circumstances. It certainly doesn't indicate you're position
Free_Th1nker says2014-07-14T20:15:37.417
Thanks for the feedback, I can see that I clearly did not articulate my position very well.

Let me rephrase my arguments, because you've done well in rebutting my poor articulation.

It is irrational to do some based entirely on social pressure. We all conform to social norms in one way or another, but to do so based entirely on social pressure is to forfeit your independence in relation to what you are conforming to. I'll stand by this position.

Firstly, it does matter whether or not you focus on one country or another. The institution of marriage and the meanings attached to marriage vary from culture to culture. To say that there is a universal understanding of marriage is inaccurate.

I should have been more clear on this: Same-sex marriage will not be legal in Texas within the decade. I am aware that you can be homosexual and live in Texas.

The definition of a healthy, successful marriage is entirely subjective. What is healthy and successful to you may be vastly different than what is healthy and successful to another person or group of people.

I have a grasp on the term rational, and I find it incredibly unreasonable to get married if there are no benefits attached to marriage. Why go through the process if there is nothing to gain. However, if rationality "implies the CONFORMITY OF ONE'S BELIEFS WITH ONE'S REASONS TO BELIEVE, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action," then rationality is subjective and there is nothing to debate.

If in fact love is not rational at all; therefore, irrational, it would follow that love cannot be used as a rational reason to get married because love in itself is not rational. I hope that makes sense, if not, let me know which logical fallacy that violates.

I stand by my original position. In fact, I really believe in abolishment of the institution as a whole, but that is unlikely to ever happen.

Honestly, this whole argument is rather silly, considering that the definition of love is subjective to the person experiencing the emotion.
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-14T21:04:20.217
"We all conform to social norms in one way or another, but to do so based entirely on social pressure is to forfeit your independence in relation to what you are conforming to."

This does not mean it is not rational. An example: It is entirely rational to hide one's homosexuality in a world where homosexuals are murdered for simply being.

It is equally rational to marry a man who impregnated you, to appease family, It is equally rational to marry someone to prevent being the victim of a social stigma. One might be able to be "independent" of the social pressures, but that does not mean the alternative is not rational, but quite the opposite.

"Firstly, it does matter whether or not you focus on one country or another. The institution of marriage and the meanings attached to marriage vary from culture to culture."

This is true, but it requires specification. If you would like to address a specific cultural tradition, by all means feel free, but America does not have an express culture, but is instead a melting pot of cultures. So it is disingenuous to assume there is a pervading "American" marital tradition.

"To say that there is a universal understanding of marriage is inaccurate."

This is not what I said. I simply made the comment that marriage supersedes societal borders, and thus cannot be judged as being the product of love or otherwise when viewed only from a single cultural perspective.

"I should have been more clear on this: Same-sex marriage will not be legal in Texas within the decade. I am aware that you can be homosexual and live in Texas."

I think you're wrong, but neither of us can claim for certain what will happen legislatively in one decade.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

"The definition of a healthy, successful marriage is entirely subjective."

Actually, no, it isn't. So long as both partners are happy in the marriage, and the marriage is intact and looks to remain so, that is a happy marriage. There is no subjectivity there. What might cause a given marriage to be happy is subjective, but the overall aspect of "happiness" is not subjective at all, and cannot be judged as such.

What makes my marriage happy, might not make another couple happy, but that does not devalue my happiness.

"What is healthy and successful to you may be vastly different than what is healthy and successful to another person or group of people."

Precisely, but what makes me happy is not necessarily what another married couple may practice, and would have no bearing on the happiness of their marriage, therefore, the subjective nature of the cause of marital happiness may be subjective, but the state of happiness in a marriage is not.

"I have a grasp on the term rational, and I find it incredibly unreasonable to get married if there are no benefits attached to marriage."

I do not find it unreasonable, and I am a fully rational individual. This indicates your assertion is not correct.

"Why go through the process if there is nothing to gain."

The entire process is a celebration of the bond the two partners share. It is about acknowledging a commitment to another person. It is entirely about dedicating one's life to a loving partnership with another person. What one gains is the sense of joy which can be felt from a shared experience of something deep and meaningful.

"if rationality "implies the CONFORMITY OF ONE'S BELIEFS WITH ONE'S REASONS TO BELIEVE..." then rationality is subjective and there is nothing to debate."

There is nothing subjective about the above statement. Rationality is how we intrinsically justify the actions we take or the beliefs we hold.

Much like the subjective nature of the CAUSES of marital happiness, the rationale chosen by a given individual can be subjective, but the act of rationalization itself is not subjective, it is the consideration of information and stimuli, which is universal.

"...It would follow that love cannot be used as a rational reason to get married because love in itself is not rational."

I stated it can be argued that love is irrational, however I do not hold this view. Love is based upon attraction, which is rational. It is based on an examination of a potential partner's stimuli, which is rational, and if successful, it results in a conclusion of attraction, appreciation and respect, in healthy relationships, three very rational perspectives.

The only logical fallacy the statement makes is begging the question, but that is a difficult fallacy to avoid if you're arguing from a specific perspective which cannot be supported by data.

"I really believe in abolishment of the institution as a whole, but that is unlikely to ever happen."

I don't see folks giving up their celebrations of love.

"Honestly, this whole argument is rather silly, considering that the definition of love is subjective to the person experiencing the emotion."

The definition of love is not subjective. The causes of love are. This seems to be a recurring nuance you tend to miss.

My wife and I have a very alternative lifestyle, but that does not mean our love is not as deep as the love of a more "traditional" marriage, though the causes, motivations and aspects of that love are different, the bond is the same, and not at all subjective.
Free_Th1nker says2014-07-14T22:42:32.863
"It is entirely rational to hide one's homosexuality in a world where homosexuals are murdered for simply being."
Do you really think it's reasonable to relinquish your independence?
To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In your hypothetical scenario (which I understand is reality in many places), the person forfeiting their liberty to express their sexuality will gain nothing other than temporary protection, perhaps not even that. I'd argue it's rather unreasonable to believe that hiding your identity truly protects you from these murders, and it is entirely unreasonable to believe that hiding your sexuality identity would alleviate the problem of homophobia in any way at all.

"It is equally rational to marry a man who impregnated you, to appease family, It is equally rational to marry someone to prevent being the victim of a social stigma."

Why marry? Why not just cohabitate? I understand that it makes sense to stay together with someone who impregnates you, accidentally or purposefully, for the sake of the child, but this can be done through cohabitation. However, I agree it would make more sense to get married in this instance because many of the laws attached to marriage deal with custody and protection of the child's interests in the event of a divorce (which we have already established is relatively high). Also, who is to say that the labels of "husband" and "wife" are not in fact benefits attached to marriage? Legal marriage documents use the descriptors "husband," "wife," "spouse," or "partner." If these labels are legally recognized once the marriage certificates, they can certainly be considered a legal benefit of marriage if they prevent someone from being the victim of a social stigma. Furthermore, fear of that social stigma may make a person who is unhappy in their marriage to remain in it.

In my argument that a healthy, successful marriage is subjective: "So long as both partners are happy in the marriage, and the marriage is intact and looks to remain so, that is a happy marriage."
The Clinton's are a married couple, clearly happy of how much political power they possess and their marriage is intact and looks to remain so. I doubt you would consider their marriage a healthy marriage. Perhaps your comparison of a happy marriage you a healthy, successful one was not what you intended to say.

'"I have a grasp on the term rational, and I find it incredibly unreasonable to get married if there are no benefits attached to marriage."
I do not find it unreasonable, and I am a fully rational individual. This indicates your assertion is not correct.'
I do not find it reasonable to get married with no benefits attached to marriages and I am a fully rational individual. Does this indicate the assertion "It is reasonable to get married with no benefits attached to marriage" not correct as well?

"I don't see folks giving up their celebrations of love."
There are any celebrations of love other than marriage.

"The definition of love is not subjective. The causes of love are. This seems to be a recurring nuance you tend to miss."
If you ask 100 people their definition of love, you will get 100 different answers. They will all be correct.

Finally, I do not know why abandoned my best point so immediately. As it stands in this country, not all forms of love are represented through marriage. Although I too share your optimism for the legalization of same sex marriage in the near future (Texas, I'm not so sure), polygamous couples will remain disenfranchised by marriage. Their love will not be recognized and inherently considered less legitimate. Marriage will be an institution of love when it encompasses all forms of love.
Jikpamu says2014-07-14T23:45:58.453
A great Bible chapter for love is 1 Corinthians Chapter 13
Free_Th1nker says2014-07-15T04:06:16.003
A great Bible chapter for the Nuremburg defense is Genesis chapter 22.
Jikpamu says2014-07-15T04:16:56.823
I'm curious: why are you using a chapter in the Bible dealing with Abraham, the Patriarch of Jewish People, being most faithful to his God and comparing it to (from what I understand) a defense used by Nazis at the Nuremburg trials...The very Nazis who slaughtered Abraham's descendants???
Free_Th1nker says2014-07-15T04:19:45.677
Abraham's defense for the contemplated murder of his son: "I was just taking orders."
The Nazi defense at the Nuremburg Trials: "We were just taking orders."

Do you notice the striking similarity?
Jikpamu says2014-07-15T05:53:02.997
No I don't notice any similarity...Context is key
6 Million Jews slaughtered by a man (Hitler) who held to occultic practices and Abraham, the father of all Jews, being faithful to the God of the Bible Who's enemy is satan, the father of occultic practices
Free_Th1nker says2014-07-15T06:04:41.983
It is literally the same defense. Both said they were just taking orders. Abraham from a god, the Nazis from a man who portrayed himself as a god. Faith is not a justification for murder. If Jesus existed, he practiced with the occult. He allegedly did things that would be considered "supernatural, mystical, or magical."
Jikpamu says2014-07-15T07:09:44.067
We will have to agree to disagree.
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-15T14:57:33.253
"It is entirely rational to hide one's homosexuality in a world where homosexuals are murdered for simply being."
'Do you really think it's reasonable to relinquish your independence?'

Absolutely, if society is unjustly structured in such a way as to make you a victim of violence and persecution otherwise. Which is entirely why I fight for same sex equality.

"To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

We are neither talking about liberty nor safety, but the rationality of conformity to social pressures.

"In your hypothetical scenario.."

It really wasn't a hypothetical, but an anecdotal reference to reality.

"the person forfeiting their liberty to express their sexuality"

No one has forfeited their liberty in my hypothetical.

"will gain nothing other than temporary protection, perhaps not even that."

Have you ever heard of beards? In the context of Rock Hudson? Google the term, and you will see reference after reference of how this behavior offered protection for many homosexuals.

" I'd argue it's rather unreasonable to believe that hiding your identity truly protects you from these murders,"

You may argue it, but you would be wrong as history has already provided us many real world references to the contrary.

" and it is entirely unreasonable to believe that hiding your sexuality identity would alleviate the problem of homophobia in any way at all."

This is true, but that is not the goal of the individual victim of persecution. Their goal is to escape persecution, especially if they lived in a world where the very existence of homosexuals was not universally acknowledged, and was often diagnosed as a mental defect.

"Why marry? Why not just cohabitate?"

As I stated before, there is a social stigma in western (particularly Christian) culture. I remember in college up hearing Dr. Laura scream on the radio about the moral decline of society due to couples "shacking up". There is significant negative stigma there.

"I understand that it makes sense to stay together with someone who impregnates you, accidentally or purposefully, for the sake of the child, but this can be done through cohabitation."

Not without the stigma, as I stated.

"However, I agree it would make more sense to get married in this instance because many of the laws attached to marriage deal with custody and protection of the child's interests in the event of a divorce (which we have already established is relatively high)."

Custody battles occur every day between unmarried and divorced parents. People don't get married for the tax breaks when an unplanned pregnancy occurs.

"Also, who is to say that the labels of "husband" and "wife" are not in fact benefits attached to marriage?"

They are just titles. The actual benefit is the relief from social stigma, in this scenario.

"They can certainly be considered a legal benefit of marriage if they prevent someone from being the victim of a social stigma."

The titles do not matter. If we traditionally called both parties the betrothed, and had no officials gender based titles, it would still provide the same benefit, a protection from social stigma. This, again, has nothing to do with the legal benefits, only the cultural perception of propriety.

"Furthermore, fear of that social stigma may make a person who is unhappy in their marriage to remain in it."

Yes, yes it does, which is why generations of women were abused by their husbands. It's also the reason why many gay men married women, to hide what they struggled with. This, again, reinforces my point and weakens yours.

Marriage is not often taken for the tax benefits.

"The Clinton's are a married couple, clearly happy"

You cannot know this, as you are not in their marriage. You're projecting your politics into a discussion where politics are not needed or wanted.

" of how much political power they possess and their marriage is intact and looks to remain so."

An intact marriage dose not denote a happy marriage.

"I doubt you would consider their marriage a healthy marriage."

No, I wouldn't, which further illustrates the pointlessness of your anecdote.

" Perhaps your comparison of a happy marriage you a healthy, successful one was not what you intended to say."

I know this isn't what you intended to say. Happy, healthy, successful. Your example had only one of the three requirements I outlined. Your example is not within the frame of our discussion.

"I do not find it reasonable to get married with no benefits attached to marriages and I am a fully rational individual. Does this indicate the assertion "It is reasonable to get married with no benefits attached to marriage" not correct as well?"

No, it simply indicates you hold an opinion that is not universal or accepted by the vast majority.

"I don't see folks giving up their celebrations of love."
'There are any celebrations of love other than marriage.'

I don't see people giving those up either. There is food other than pizza, that doesn't mean I'm never going to eat pizza again. Because pizza is awesome.

"If you ask 100 people their definition of love, you will get 100 different answers. They will all be correct."

The semantics will be different, but the meaning will be the same.
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-15T15:04:07.023
"Finally, I do not know why abandoned my best point so immediately."

It wasn't a very good point.

"As it stands in this country, not all forms of love are represented through marriage."

This does not mean the marriages that are represented are not based in love. It also does not mean the institution is not one based on love.

"Although I too share your optimism for the legalization of same sex marriage in the near future (Texas, I'm not so sure), polygamous
couples will remain disenfranchised by marriage."

That will likely change in time, and it wasn't law 100 years ago. It also does not devalue the nature of marriage for those who can legally obtain the status. Examples of lingering societal injustices does not render all love invalid.

"Their love will not be recognized and inherently considered less legitimate."

So was the love between gay people 20 years ago. This has since changed. The institution of marriage has not changed. It remains an institution of love, it now just has more participants.

"Marriage will be an institution of love when it encompasses all forms of love."

It is an institution of love precisely because it is the crux of the battle to shift the societal perception towards these communities.

It is the love we can clearly see in the eyes and hearts of same sex couples who have a marriage ceremony, which helps open the minds of those individuals who previously rejected the notion of love between the same sex.
Free_Th1nker says2014-07-15T15:45:59.750
"We are neither talking about liberty nor safety, but the rationality of conformity to social pressures."

Conforming to social pressures gives up your liberty of free expression for safety from physical or emotional harm. To maintain this liberty of expression would be to not conform.

"In your hypothetical scenario.."
It really wasn't a hypothetical, but an anecdotal reference to reality.
I acknowledged that it was a real situation. Do not take my quotes out of context.

"No one has forfeited their liberty in my hypothetical."
Yes, they have.

"You may argue it, but you would be wrong as history has already provided us many real world references to the contrary. "
I would not be wrong, as history has already provided us many real world references to support it. For example, Jewish people aligned themselves with the Nazis in concentration camps, in order for protection from be murdered, and were murdered anyway. They sacrificed a liberty and they died regardless. Although it can happen, it does not truly protect you.

The stigma is alleviated by the terms attached to marriage: Spouse, partner, husband, wife. These labels are a legal benefit of marriage. They are only legally recognized under marriage.

"Custody battles occur every day between unmarried and divorced parents."

Correct; however, the benefits of marriage make these hearings carry out more fairly and orderly.

"Yes, yes it does, which is why generations of women were abused by their husbands. It's also the reason why many gay men married women, to hide what they struggled with. This, again, reinforces my point and weakens yours."

Not quite, because these marriages reinforce the idea that marriage is not an institution of love.

"Marriage is not often taken for the tax benefits. "

Tax benefits are far from the only benefits of marriage.

"No, it simply indicates you hold an opinion that is not universal or accepted by the vast majority."
I never argued my opinion was universal or accepted by the vast majority.

"The institution of marriage has not changed."
This is absolutely false. The institution of marriage has been historically sexist, racist, and homophobic in the context in the history of the United States.
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-15T16:18:26.523
"Conforming to social pressures gives up your liberty of free expression for safety from physical or emotional harm. To maintain this liberty of expression would be to not conform."

Ah but you're viewing the world from a perspective of today, when there is the possibility that refusing to conform wouldn't result in the elimination of other major civil liberties. In my example, the individual preserves both their liberty and their security, by CHOOSING to conform to the pressures of society. They are not forced to conform, but they choose to. Regardless of what Mr. Franklin believes they deserve, we are discussing the motivations behind the choice, which were all too real for the gay individuals of yester-year.

No, they preserved their liberty to live without persecution, by CHOOSING to conform to a behavior that did not come naturally to them. If they were forced to conform, that would be the relinquishment of their freedom.

"Jewish people aligned themselves with the Nazis in concentration camps, in order for protection from be murdered, and were murdered anyway. They sacrificed a liberty and they died regardless. Although it can happen, it does not truly protect you. "

That's really not much of an example, and works against you when actually considered.

There are far more examples of Jewish people hiding their Judaism from the Nazis to avoid having their liberties stripped, which is very close to hiding one's homosexuality to preserve the other social freedoms one might enjoy.

Http://www.Jewishvirtuallibrary.Org/jsource/Holocaust/hidden.Html

Thank you for the excellent example of how individuals will conform to pressure to protect their person. But we have digressed significantly from the discussion.

Marriage is an institution of love.

"The stigma is alleviated by the terms attached to marriage: Spouse, partner, husband, wife."

That's silly. The terms do not matter, it is the officialism and the ceremony that matters.

"These labels are a legal benefit of marriage. They are only legally recognized under marriage."

Not at all true. The very term Husband comes from ancient norse, and means homeowner, it has nothing to do with marriage, but was adopted due to common vernacular.

"Custody battles occur every day between unmarried and divorced parents."

'Correct; however, the benefits of marriage make these hearings carry out more fairly and orderly.'

You've clearly never been to a custody hearing. Marriage doesn't help this much. It's always a bloody battle. Trust me.

"Yes, yes it does, which is why generations of women were abused by their husbands. It's also the reason why many gay men married women, to hide what they struggled with. This, again, reinforces my point and weakens yours."

'Not quite, because these marriages reinforce the idea that marriage is not an institution of love.'

Not at all, you're letting bad apples spoil the bunch. These marriages indicate the institution was perverted by the patriarchal influence of feudal society and the Catholic Church, it doesn't indicate the institution is not one of love.

"The institution of marriage has not changed."
This is absolutely false. The institution of marriage has been historically sexist, racist, and homophobic in the context in the history of the United States.

You're back to focusing entirely on the USA, which has been in existence for only a fraction of human history. When discussing the institution of marriage, one must go beyond a focus on historical context from the past 300 years. Try looking back about 6000 years.

You're also arguing that marriage is not an institution of love, because the world labors under the culture of patriarchal oppression, which is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

One could say schools do not educate, because they do not preach specifically against the established patriarchy.

Marriage has not changed, it just has more participants.