Opinion of Marriage?

[TDAS04]

FI.  It's a great way for two loving people to commit to each other, but it's not for everyone.  I'm happy being single.  It is a great institution that should be gently encouraged for those couples who live together, but society should not pressure those who are happy living alone. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Marriage as a long-term partnership between two devoted persons who love each other is obviously one of the greatest ideas of our society. Even though I respect that some people are not suited for that sort of relationship or want that sort of relationship, and thus object to it on a personal level I can't see how they can think that it's a bad thing in general.  

EDIT: So basicly what TDA just said.

[Goldwater]

One of the most important social institutions we have. FI.

I thought marriage wasn't a big deal to you?  Or is marriage only important for straight people...?

Supersonic supports gay marriage...

[Nhoj]

One of the most important social institutions we have. FI.

I thought marriage wasn't a big deal to you?  Or is marriage only important for straight people...?

Supersonic supports gay marriage...

Also I believe gay.

[opebo]

...the general kyriarchy of social relations

tfw someone other than me or Nathan uses the term kyriarchy here

I'd be quite interested in learning what kyriarchy is (well, sure, I could read wikipedia, but whatever ).

It is a hierarchy based on how much ky one uses.

And my contribution for a 'good post':

Legalized slavery. It's been a way for prude women to con their boyfriends into a life of monogamy and servitude for thousands of years. Disgraceful that we still keep it around.

[Franknburger]

As long as no children are in play, marriage is mostly a symbolic act: Two people announcing their (intended) eternal devotion to each other and to the public. May at a certain age help to reduce parental influence, and can be a way to deal with societal pressure (especially in the case of gay marriage), but is otherwise as meaningful as most symbols are.

The function changes when children come into play. Parenthood alters the balance of power within a hetero-sexual relation. The mother has, at least temporarily, to give up education, career and income opportunities, and thus becomes more financially dependent on her male partner. On the other hand, she gains education rights on the child, which she can share (or not) at her discretion with the partner. Marriage corrects these imbalances: It obliges the father to share his income advance with the mother, and obliges the mother to allow the father an equal say on education matters. As such, it promotes equality within the relation. It furthermore protects the child, entitling it to financial support from the (typically better-off) father, and providing it with access to two care-takers (plus their family, especially the grandparents).

As is the case with all legal institutions that aim at governing personal relations, the potential impact is limited and cannot replace good will on both sides.

[dead0man]

I respect it of course, but you straights have f-cked it up. Cheap Vegas weddings, remarriage after remarriage, quickie divorces, marriages for inheritance, money, passports, magazine deals, forced marriages, shotgun weddings. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Is it hard holding up that broad brush, Andrew? 

I think/hope he's just being funny....but if not, ignore the broad brush stuff...does he really think no homosexuals will ever do the things he listed?...which makes me fairly certain he's joking.

Hell, he didn't even mention the absolute worst type of marriage....the kind that costs over, say, $8k.  You're an asshole if you spend $100k on a wedding.  You're a bigger asshole if you just expect you're father/father-in-law to drop the wallet for it.  I don't care if that's what our culture dictates, it's freaking stupid.  Of course if you're a billionaire or whatever, I suppose knock your socks off giving your money to other rich people and "back" to the dozens of poors supporting your decadence.  The people I'm throwing the "asshole" tag at are the people who go in to WAY TOO much debt paying for their own or their kids wedding(s).

As for the OP, FI.  It's not respected very much anymore, people seem to too easily go into and out of them, but it's probably better this way than the alternative.  On the other hand, as others have mentioned, it reinforces one of the greatest aspects of being a higher mammal, love given and received.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Freedom Institution.  I'm surprised the results are as lop-sided as they are, considering how so many liberal pundits claim that marriage as a whole is old-fashioned and outdated.

[DC Al Fine]

Bump to prevent my thread from being lost in a sea of barfbag threads.

[barfbag]

Bump to prevent my thread from being lost in a sea of barfbag threads.

Do you guys think I post too many threads? Should I stop? What should I do? I just want to get people to talk about all kinds of interesting topics.

[Oak Hills]

FI (normal)

^this

What are the arguments against it?

The government is now involved in your relationships.

You can (for most people) only sleep with 1 person for the rest of your life.

If you divorce, the other person gets half of everything no matter what, if anything, they brought to the relationship.

Your spouse now controls you.  He or she can now become a lazy moocher, nag you to death, and now weigh 400 lbs and your only options are 1:  Put up with it  2:  Get divorced and they get half your stuff.  And don't start with prenups as they can be thrown out.

You will acquire your spouse's debt even if you didn't know about it.

The government is not forcing anyone to get married. I you don't like marriage, don't get married, but don't take it away from the rest of us.

[Oak Hills]

Bump to prevent my thread from being lost in a sea of barfbag threads.

Do you guys think I post too many threads? Should I stop? What should I do? I just want to get people to talk about all kinds of interesting topics.

Yes and yes.

[barfbag]

FI (normal)

^this

What are the arguments against it?

The government is now involved in your relationships.

You can (for most people) only sleep with 1 person for the rest of your life.

If you divorce, the other person gets half of everything no matter what, if anything, they brought to the relationship.

Your spouse now controls you.  He or she can now become a lazy moocher, nag you to death, and now weigh 400 lbs and your only options are 1:  Put up with it  2:  Get divorced and they get half your stuff.  And don't start with prenups as they can be thrown out.

You will acquire your spouse's debt even if you didn't know about it.

The government is not forcing anyone to get married. I you don't like marriage, don't get married, but don't take it away from the rest of us.

Exactly ^

[Franknburger]

In case you haven't noticed yet, barfbag: A comment by you tends to kill a thread. Seems like people just stop looking at a "NEW" tag if they realise you have been the last poster. So, please, try to put some substance into your contributions (which I know you have the ability to).

[Marnetmar]

Freedom, don't see anything wrong with it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Perhaps surprisingly (or perhaps not), I agree with DC.

[Torie]

An important and valued institution if one plans to have issue.