NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

Probably. Though the concept of it is still appealing to me personally, just unrealistic.

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

I think it proves we're an obsolete nation. The very fact that this is thought of is even more proof. My own countrymen make me sick sometimes... I find that to be much more of an issue than marriage or "oppression" of very willing women.

Thanks to the ultra-religious right, normal marriage is now obsolete. Apparently, to be a good a 'good Christian' now you have to have a mega marriage (aka covenant-marriage (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1108434646194660.xml&storylist=louisiana)).

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

Yes. But then HIV would spread like wildfire.

Thanks to the ultra-religious right, normal marriage is now obsolete. Apparently, to be a good a 'good Christian' now you have to have a mega marriage (aka covenant-marriage (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1108434646194660.xml&storylist=louisiana)).

Meh. A lot of conservatives seem to get married more than once.

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

You're a dude, eh?

You're a dude, eh?

Sounds like a feminist. A male feminist?

no

we would just have to recreate a similar social construct for the creation of new family units and for the raising/custody of children

marriage isnt about SEX, its about family. you dont need a license to have sex and many people have sex outside their own marriage. what they DONT have is a financial obligation to anyone outside their own family.


2 young people get married and build a life together. they have the support of law and society to have that new family be as secure as possible. so that a woman can feel safer staying home to raise her children if she chooses, for example. so that a man (to continue this sexually stereotyped thought) can share his money with a woman who is going to use it for his benefit. all money is part of a family economic unit and goes to the benefit of all members whether they contribute cash or only labor.

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years? Who said marriage was about sex? Besides, most marriages are broken by death by that time anyway now that we marry later - if not first divorce.

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring? Sure. But exercise gyms go against our evolutionary instincts to not expend large amounts of energy on acts that are no help to survival or reproduction. And why the heck do you think people get married now that it's culturally acceptable to stay single, if it's boring?

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children? Um, right. I don't know my history that well yet, being only a high school freshman, but it's evolved past that so I don't see your point. It serves other purposes now.

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc? That's not the only division of labor. The man can just as easily do it, they can split the work, or whatever. And see, if neither of them was doing it, they'd have to pay someone ELSE to do it, and that pay would have to come out of one salary of the other, lets say the woman's to go alongside your point. The payment is the money you save by not having to pay someone else, if that makes sense.

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole? Only for those that insist it's a purely Christian institution, and you have to admit those people would just go to the next thing on their list to complain about.

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids? Because it would require a large raise in taxes, as well as promote irresponsibility on the part of the parents. Like I said before, there is no reason the division of labor has to weighted toward the woman staying home, but kids deserve to be raised by parents, not government programs. Kids are a responsibility that you choose to take on and part of taking it on means realizing you must give up other things, just like any other set of rights and responsibilities. You can't have it all at the same time.

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with? You're not trapped. There's a thing called divorce. And yes, we could separate the legal contract from the personal commitment ceremony, but people generally don't want to do that.

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution? No, they prove that people are not marrying the right people and/or not managing their relationships well, and finally feel free (not "trapped" anymore) to leave a situation that makes them unhappy.

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?


So, you are stating a case that it is obsolete based on "evolutionary instincts"? Wouldn't that be more likely to indicate that marriage is becoming LESS obsolete as we evolve?

Plus - it's only boring if you married the wrong person :p


Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

didn;t work very well did it though. If people are going to cheat they are going to cheat - no matter what their gender.

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?


Only if the woman married a selfish asshole.

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?


So, will gay marriages "promote hetrosexism" too? And for many of us the marriage is a secular notion - not a religious one. Those prone to religous dogmatism will, of course, extend that into their married lives as well.

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?


Actually, couples make that choice. Nor is having kids just to have others do all the raising of them a terribly good idea.

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?


Like.... divorce? People who feel trapped are usually with an abusive person who has them living in fear. That is a function of that person - not the form of contract. It happens in common-law situations also.

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

No. It might, however, prove that many people don't have the personal morals or ethics to live up to a vow they made.

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?
If it happens, unless you can demonstrate some process that isnt possible within the bounds of nature, then yes it is natural.

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?
Whether or not it is boring is contingent. As to the earlier, you would have to posit an argument that proved what you suggest is an evolutionary instinct. Even having proven this, it doesnt really mean all that much. The fact that something was adaptive at one time and place, does not conclusively tell us whether or not it is adaptive in another time and place.

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?
No.

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?
No.

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?
No.

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?
We probably could. I dont see that it's particularly relevent.

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?
Not really. People can make legal contracts if they choose, they can marry if they choose.

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?
I dont think so.

no

we would just have to recreate a similar social construct for the creation of new family units and for the raising/custody of children

marriage isnt about SEX, its about family. you dont need a license to have sex and many people have sex outside their own marriage. what they DONT have is a financial obligation to anyone outside their own family.


2 young people get married and build a life together. they have the support of law and society to have that new family be as secure as possible. so that a woman can feel safer staying home to raise her children if she chooses, for example. so that a man (to continue this sexually stereotyped thought) can share his money with a woman who is going to use it for his benefit. all money is part of a family economic unit and goes to the benefit of all members whether they contribute cash or only labor.

No. Marriage isn't just about sex, agreed. But it is an important part of a marriage, at least in most peoples' opinions.

the woman of the marriage arent "oppressed" unless they feel that they are. and then they can get a divorce. divorce rates are high when something happens like infidelity for the rates to increase. otherwise you can spread your dna far and wide by staying with the same partner that you love and can have a big family with which will branch off from there. in my own opinion..marriage is not obsolete.

[QUOTE=Zincite]Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years? Who said marriage was about sex? Besides, most marriages are broken by death by that time anyway now that we marry later - if not first divorce.

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring? Sure. But exercise gyms go against our evolutionary instincts to not expend large amounts of energy on acts that are no help to survival or reproduction. And why the heck do you think people get married now that it's culturally acceptable to stay single, if it's boring?

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children? Um, right. I don't know my history that well yet, being only a high school freshman, but it's evolved past that so I don't see your point. It serves other purposes now.[QUOTE]

i have to say i agree with just about everything you said in your whole reply there.

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

A survey done in the UK shows that around 27% of divorces in that country are due to adultery. I'm not sure about the US.

Sounds like a feminist. A male feminist?

I have no idea, the whole thing sounded feminist except for the sex thing....plus I don't know many chicks who'd call themselves soviet narco state....not being sexist, just something I've noticed.

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?

Well, if you want to be true to evolutionary biology with regards to mating then guys should all get together at an annual festival of ritual combat. Surviving losers are driven out of society until next year and women have no choice but to accept the sexual advances of the winners. It also isn't boring.

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

Yup. Cultures in which lineage is only traced through the woman don't have a word for bastard and virtually no concept of romantic jealousy, so guys have no incentive to beat women to death for being "impure". Also women have very little incentive to be choosy about who they have sex with so there's a much better chance that a guy can get laid. They tend to get weird about other things though. There are some places wher eyou can walk into town and have sex with any woman you meet, but you'd better not do it in the husbands house, because then he'll be mad.

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?
Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?
Yup, that's why the religious right likes it so much. That, and the fact that more children means that the labor pool gets flooded so that wages go down. They LOVE that part.

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?
If people are free to both feed and shelter their children and to see to it that their children are cared for then they might actually be able to think about things. They might get an education and start trying to make life better for middle and lower classes. Is that what you want you commie?

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

Nah. That's just the moral decay of a liberal society. All of that will get fixed once we give our lives to Jesus.

I have no idea, the whole thing sounded feminist except for the sex thing....plus I don't know many chicks who'd call themselves soviet narco state....not being sexist, just something I've noticed.

very true...thats basically all i have to say

What should be obsolete is the govt' in marriage at all it should be between the two people and their families till intrusive govt came along into things which is frankly none of their business.

A survey done in the UK shows that around 27% of divorces in that country are due to adultery. I'm not sure about the US.

Here in the US divorce rates are highest in the so-called "Bible Belt." The part of the country where people are the most politicaly conservative, the most religious, the most uneducated, and the most poor.

I'm not saying everyone there is an ignorant bible thumping republican, just per capita they have more than their fair share.

Divorce correllates most highly with poverty and poor coping skills (stress management). There was a slogan here for a while "the family that prays together stays together," predicated on the idea that prayer lowers stress and stress breaks up marriages.

Jerry Falwell tried to argue that none of those Bible Belt divorces were likely to have taken place in the homes of real Christians, so I'm guessing he thinks that the Bible Belt has a disproportionate amount of Non-Christian liberals or something.

No. Marriage isn't just about sex, agreed. But it is an important part of a marriage, at least in most peoples' opinions.
yes it is, and few people, especially in the beginning years, will ever put up with a spouse who has sex outside the marriage. its just too dangerous to put up with.. no one wants to support children that arent theirs (at least not without agreeing to it beforehand)

but the point of marriage isnt sex. its family. its money, children, responsibility, stability. if we didnt have it, we would have to invent it.

Jerry Falwell tried to argue that none of those Bible Belt divorces were likely to have taken place in the homes of real Christians, so I'm guessing he thinks that the Bible Belt has a disproportionate amount of Non-Christian liberals or something.
i think what this Jerry Falwell guy is trying to say is that the people who say they are Christians but arent really committed to their Christianity are more vulnerable to have a divorce.

I don't think that marriage is obsolete, I think it's not a necessary part of a long-term relationship and that our 'conception' of marriage is what is obsolete.

For me, marriage is any lifelong commitment to a consenting partner who wants to spend the rest of their life with you.

And if it doesn't work out that's ok too. :p

On the biology, I think consciousness overrides biological needs. I want to be with my partner forever, even if it's not in the interest of evolution. Besides, humans are so well colonised on this planet we hardly need to be churning out evolutionarily sound offspring. Besides, there is something subconscious in us that often finds good genetic traits attractive.

i look at it this way: my current boyfriend does housework a lot. he's worse than me when it comes to dealing with messes, he can't stand cluttered, dirty counters and i can't stand dirty floors and bathrooms. so i'm guessing the housework woudl be evenly distributed should we get married. especially as we both plan on working.

at any rate, whether or not marriage is an antiquated notion doesn't concern me. all i want is to grow old with someone i love. if it gets boring (which it won't) then hey, that's what the kama sutra is for.

Thanks to the ultra-religious right, normal marriage is now obsolete. Apparently, to be a good a 'good Christian' now you have to have a mega marriage (aka covenant-marriage (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1108434646194660.xml&storylist=louisiana)).
Covenant marriages sound pretty sweet. I think I'll convince my girlfriend to get one with me. Then i'll cover my back in rogaine, grow a might forest of disgusting back hair, wear nothing but sweat pants and "hooters" T-shirts, give up on teeth brushing and showering and start wearing old man diapers.

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

Human sexuality has never had anything to do with nature. Our sexuality is based on our culture. Hence, the answer is no ... with an addendum.

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?

Not really, no.

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

Not my marriage, but suit yourself if that's what you're looking for.

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?

In my home, I get up with the kids in the morning, I cook the meals, I mend the clothes, I do the shopping. She does the laundry (usually) and cleans the kitchen and gives me kid-free time in the evenings to get work done without distraction. Again, I don't know whose marriage you're looking at, but it must suck.

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?

Not really, no.

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?

So you, as well, have fallen prey to the Western ideaology that women are supposed to be the ones to make such choices, eh? I hate to tell you this, but I - a MAN - was the one who made the choice between career and children. I don't regret my decision.

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?

If you think of marriage as a "contract", then you should never get married.

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

No, not really. It proves that it's a personal choice.

I think it is. It goes back to a time when women were viewed as property.

I think it is. It goes back to a time when women were viewed as property.

Not really. Almost all societies have some form of marriage, even those who were always rather egalitarian regarding gender issues. The difference is that, for the most part, matrilineal societies (those where children always take the last name of the mother) people don't care if their spouses "cheat" and they divorce as soon as they don't feel like being married anymore.

Although they don't really have a concept of cheating. Cheating is a hold over from when women were viewed as property. So is the concept of promiscuous single women being sluts as opposed to merely hedonists.

Marraige is obsolete. Now go boink someone.

Not really. Almost all societies have some form of marriage, even those who were always rather egalitarian regarding gender issues.
So far, so good...
The difference is that, for the most part, matrilineal societies (those where children always take the last name of the mother) people don't care if their spouses "cheat" and they divorce as soon as they don't feel like being married anymore.
Not true. Perhaps this is true of some matrilineal societies, but it is not true of them all.

So is the concept of promiscuous single women being sluts as opposed to merely hedonists.While we're on the topic, what about the whores/madonnas dichotomy? That a woman is either an innocent virgin or a slut. That is an idea to which my parents evidently sunscribe. :(

I think there's a subject at uni called whores and madonnas. I may just have to take that.

While we're on the topic, what about the whores/madonnas dichotomy? That a woman is either an innocent virgin or a slut. That is an idea to which my parents evidently sunscribe. :(

I think there's a subject at uni called whores and madonnas. I may just have to take that.

Can one major in Whores and Madonnas?

Can one major in Whores and Madonnas?
:p

I'm close- doing Gender Studies.

:p

I'm close- doing Gender Studies.

Interesting. What general conclusions have you drawn from your studies with regard to gender issues in Western culture?

Interesting. What general conclusions have you drawn from your studies with regard to gender issues in Western culture?
Get back to me in a year. :P
I'm doing a double (well honestly a triple) degree so I haven't done many arts components. I've taken a politics and a creative writing subject so far. :P

Next semester is all arts. I can't wait!

yes it is, and few people, especially in the beginning years, will ever put up with a spouse who has sex outside the marriage. its just too dangerous to put up with.. no one wants to support children that arent theirs (at least not without agreeing to it beforehand)

but the point of marriage isnt sex. its family. its money, children, responsibility, stability. if we didnt have it, we would have to invent it.

Sorry. You’ve completely lost me. I never said anything about adultery. Apart from in a completely separate post, which was not the one you quoted.

In fact, I was agreeing with your initial post. I just simply added that sex, whilst not the sole purpose of marriage, is important in any such loving and long-term relationship between two people. That is the general view held by most people, and whether the institution of marriage is about sex or not, we consider sex to be an important part of it. Sorry to break it to you, but to have a family requires S-E-X.

While we're on the topic, what about the whores/madonnas dichotomy? That a woman is either an innocent virgin or a slut. That is an idea to which my parents evidently sunscribe. :(

I think there's a subject at uni called whores and madonnas. I may just have to take that.

Oh don’t get me started on that. It makes me furious. Women don’t have sex with themselves for Christ’s sake. There’s no need to single out one sex with such degrading derogatory terms. I walk away from arguments in which people use such language to get their points across... utterly uncalled for.

Anyhow… the concept of marriage is obviously out-dated to some people, but that's a matter of personal choice. Plenty of people choose not to get married, and I don't have a problem with that. It's all part of living in a free society.

" Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring? "

What about mans evolutionary extincts to insure the life of his offspring by fighting-hunting-killing.

I'm not talking about War Games through politics. Although that is a way men feed that instinct in this society.

I'm meaning actually being the hunter for his family providing food and safety.

Fighting off or killing other men when they come into his territory and threaten his livelyhood.

Has that instinct been bred out of men over the years?

If it has, then why wouldn't the other instincts have been bred out?

Anyhow… the concept of marriage is obviously out-dated to some people, but that's a matter of personal choice. Plenty of people choose not to get married, and I don't have a problem with that. It's all part of living in a free society.
I completely second that. Although New Zealand is evidently freer than Australia ...

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?[/QUOTE]

Most people get divorce becuase of financial reason, which leads me to believe that marriage for some people is still about economic security.

Your idea is barbaric. Who would raise the family? Everyone would be poor. Their would be a hell of a lot more people, and most would be poor. With a family. The mother and father raise the kids, however many their are. They invest money in the family and the cycle keeps repeating itself. That is better than. Caveman1 made babies with cavewomen1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and so on. They all starve to death except for one or two of the lucky ones.

Marriage is not obsolete by any means. The purpose of it has evolved, that much is certain, but its not obsolete.

The only problem I see with it is when government taxes people for being married. It discourages marriage. I would love to marry my honey, but not if we have to get taxed more for it. We both agree on that.

-Asylum Nova

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

As a legal institution, yes, it is obsolete. As a moral one, it will never be obsolete.

Most people get divorce becuase of financial reason, which leads me to believe that marriage for some people is still about economic security.

Most people divorce because of financial reasons?

I've yet to meet a person that divorced for financial reasons.

Frankly, I think marriage is rather outdated. I am totally for anyone staying single, at least as long as possible. It doesn't have to do with any biological reasons, it is just that I have not seen one single happy marriage.

Even today, now that both men and women can live without each other (in other words, men can work and take care of a home and so can women, not like back in the day when women didn't work and men didn't take care of the household) I feel that people get married too soon and too young.

Why get married so soon, if at all? There are just too many fish in the sea.
At least enjoy yourself through your 20's at the minimum.

If you do get married, do so because you are willing to spend the rest of your life (that is a mighty long time, folks) with that one person, until one of you dies. It's that serious. Don't get married because you think you need to or because your parents or friends or society says you should.

Sorry for being so long-winded I have very stong opinions about just about everything. :p

The only problem I see with it is when government taxes people for being married. It discourages marriage. I would love to marry my honey, but not if we have to get taxed more for it. We both agree on that.


In the U.S. it is single people who get screwed and married people who get a tax break.

It should be completely equal. It shouldn't be the government's business if you are married or not, marriage should be strictly religious and all gov't should stay the heck out of it anyway (seperation of church and state, anyone?!!)

Thanks to the ultra-religious right, normal marriage is now obsolete. Apparently, to be a good a 'good Christian' now you have to have a mega marriage (aka covenant-marriage (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1108434646194660.xml&storylist=louisiana)).

First off, your name is a contradiction. The liberal movement is based on the hippie movement of the 1960's, a highly irrational movement with heavy drug use. Marriage is not obsolete. YOU are obsolete. Apparently the moral standard has deteriorated so badly that most people don't care enough to truly love someone. Marriage IS a covenant.

This question is utterly ridiculous.

I think the whole bit about "evolutionary instincts" is rediculous

evolutionary instincts would call for all males to fight over the best females, and impregnate as many as possible

also, all our disabled people would be basically killed off, and only the strongest and those who mature earliest would really survive.

also, the only person i can think of in the last century that was really pro-evolution in modern society was hitler, trying to kill people off to make a pure race.

So to answer the question, yes marriage and most of society contradicts our evolutionary instincts, and we are a hell of a lot better off for it

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

1. Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?
Yes. It is perfectly natural. Many creatures mate for life, marriage is hardly that strong however.

2.Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?
Spreading our DNA everywhere is not our instinct. As for the boring part, that may be your opinion but it is not the same as everybody elses.

3.Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?
Yes that was a use of it, it has become a bonding between two people who love each other. If it is not actually that now is besides the point, civilized marriage is for that reason and it may be perverted by anybody just like any other creation.

4.Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?
Women aren't the sole caretakers, men can be far more maternal than women in a marriage.

5.Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?
Marriage is denied to homosexuals, which promotes heterosexuality yes, but marriage in itself is not. Marriage is a religious matter, civil unions are a state matter. Which are you speaking of?

6.Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?
Again with the stereotyping, but yes that would be nice. That has no relevance with marriage however.

7.Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?
Then that would be a personal thing, not a binding contract like marriage. That is not marriage, it is a promise

8.Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?
Does protest mean that government is an obsolete and archaic institution? Does a child complaining when he is grounded make parenting altogether an obsolete and archaic institution? If anytime a system does not agree with people make it obsolete and/or archaic? Go ahead and make your own opinions, but in mine marriage should evolve, not die.

if a man wants the kids to be his that would be continuing his dna and if youll look to the animal world ther are alot of for life mating animals.

then again ther are the animals such as gorrilas wich have mor than one mate that only mates with them so does that mean that they are polygamists? mormon gorrillas! i mean danm!

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?

You're going to go to hell. Thats all I'll say. Have fun burning for eternity.

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?




1) women get emotional support from their husbands, a roof over their head, and their financial needs are provided for.

2) Heterosexism? Wow a new liberal buzzword? So let me guess, all straights are really gay or bisexual, but just don't admit it, and it's society which forces them act straight? Is that the line you tow (it sounds like my sociology text book)

3) No, we couldn't extend it because then we'll have another generation of kids growing up without their mother's love and they'll feel rejected and hate the world. If a woman has to even contemplate which is more important, family or career, she's reprobate.


The only exception being if the income she'd earn is needed. A woman should not be working unless it it necessary, basically everybody in my family believes this and the bible backs it up. Simply, "Wanting to work" isn't enough justification for me to support a woman working outside of the house.

Besides, my grandmother raised three kids, my great grandparents raised six, and that was full time work. Although my grandmother also worked in the family business, on and off, as the times dictated. Really, that's probably how it ought to be, don't say, "A woman has to work outside of the house to be successful" or not even, "Always work at home." Let it be determined by the ever changing circumstances.

But overall, I think it's better for all involved if women are mothers and wives first, and then whatever else, second.

The only exception being if the income she'd earn is needed. A woman should not be working unless it it necessary, basically everybody in my family believes this and the bible backs it up. Simply, "Wanting to work" isn't enough justification for me to support a woman working outside of the house.
How would you feel if someone said that men shouldn't work outside the home?

How would you feel if someone said that men shouldn't work outside the home?


I go by the bible, the bible is quite clear on the matter, where is your moral compass? What does your moral compass zero in on? Mine follows the morality of Christ, the only begotten Son of Almighty God.

I go by the bible, the bible is quite clear on the matter, where is your moral compass? What does your moral compass zero in on? Mine follows the morality of Christ, the only begotten Son of Almighty God.
He is either that or the biggest con artist in history

How would you feel if someone said that men shouldn't work outside the home?

Don’t even bother arguing with him. He doesn’t even believe that women should have the right to vote.

I go by the bible, the bible is quite clear on the matter, where is your moral compass? What does your moral compass zero in on? Mine follows the morality of Christ, the only begotten Son of Almighty God.

Christ taught love, respect, tolerance and equality. Perhaps you don't follow his morality...

Don’t even bother arguing with him. He doesn’t even believe that women should have the right to vote.


Dang, when did I say that? I think I specifically said a few threads back on issues like this, that women ought to have the right to vote, but that doesn't mean they have go "Career crazy" and forget about family. Please don't put words in my mouth...

Dang, when did I say that? I think I specifically said a few threads back on issues like this, that women ought to have the right to vote, but that doesn't mean they have go "Career crazy" and forget about family. Please don't put words in my mouth...
All they have to do is use birth controll :) then they dont have to worry about the "family"

There solves your issues

Don’t even bother arguing with him. He doesn’t even believe that women should have the right to vote.
True, and I'm right of the bottom of his ladder, a brown leftie woman. :p

As for my morality, it comes from ethics. Not hurting others and constantly asking how your actions impact others. Living in such a way that you leave a positive footprint. I don't need a higher power to tell me how to live.

Dang, when did I say that? I think I specifically said a few threads back on issues like this, that women ought to have the right to vote, but that doesn't mean they have go "Career crazy" and forget about family. Please don't put words in my mouth...

I generally don’t bother with many threads like this so I honestly wouldn’t know. But we’ve discussed the subject once or twice in MSN, in fact, I believe you said that nobody should have the right to vote until such a time as everybody is better educated to make such important decisions.

Hey, I’m not putting words in your mouth. That is what you said.

All they have to do is use birth controll :) then they dont have to worry about the "family"

There solves your issues

That creates a whole new problem, any woman who marries me, and uses birth control on her own perogative, had better be able to support herself, because I'll throw her out. I won't be carried into hell because of some sinner living in my midst. Live not amongst the unclean thing, touch not the unclean thing, shun the unclean thing.

A Calvinist ought only marry another Calvinist, then this issue is resolved as Calvinists have traditional marriages and don't allow divorces, so the issues are resolved. Family, family, family.

I generally don’t bother with many threads like this so I honestly wouldn’t know. But we’ve discussed the subject once or twice in MSN, in fact, I believe you said that nobody should have the right to vote until such a time as everybody is better educated to make such important decisions.

Hey, I’m not putting words in your mouth. That is what you said.

But once folks are educated, men and women can vote. I'm not for selectively denying people the right to vote on the basis of gender.

Just because a woman has a job doesn't mean she doesn't care about her family.

That creates a whole new problem, any woman who marries me, and uses birth control on her own perogative, had better be able to support herself, because I'll throw her out. I won't be carried into hell because of some sinner living in my midst. Live not amongst the unclean thing, touch not the unclean thing, shun the unclean thing.

A Calvinist ought only marry another Calvinist, then this issue is resolved as Calvinists have traditional marriages and don't allow divorces, so the issues are resolved. Family, family, family.

... but you follow the morality of Christ. What happened to love, respect, tolerance and all those other wonderful things Jesus was trying to teach us back then?

That creates a whole new problem, any woman who marries me, and uses birth control on her own perogative, had better be able to support herself, because I'll throw her out. I won't be carried into hell because of some sinner living in my midst. Live not amongst the unclean thing, touch not the unclean thing, shun the unclean thing.

A Calvinist ought only marry another Calvinist, then this issue is resolved as Calvinists have traditional marriages and don't allow divorces, so the issues are resolved. Family, family, family.
Well if you are so against it what about her just not having sex with you ... or if so timing it so that the cycles are off (planning)
That would solve the family problem and the bc problem

You just may not be geting any ... or any often lol

... but you follow the morality of Christ. What happened to love, respect, tolerance and all those other wonderful things Jesus was trying to teach us back then?
Selective beliefs

But once folks are educated, men and women can vote. I'm not for selectively denying people the right to vote on the basis of gender.

Either way, methinks you advocate a dictatorship...

Selective beliefs

Very.

... but you follow the morality of Christ. What happened to love, respect, tolerance and all those other wonderful things Jesus was trying to teach us back then?


The way I understand it, and the way the bible teaches it, the message of Christ is one of hatred of the Reprobate, woe to sinners, and death and woe to mankind.

Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring to peace unto the Earth, for I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Matthew 24:21-24
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."




Some Old Testament too, since Christ "brought nothing new" but "Came to fulfill the scriptures"

Isaiah 3:11
"Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them!
They will be paid back for what their hands have done"

Jeremiah 13:27
"Your adulteries and lustful neighings, your shameless prostitution!
I have seen your detestable acts on the hills and in the fields. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! How long will you be unclean?"


Malachi 1:2-3
I have loved you," says the LORD .
"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."



Proverbs 1:24-32
But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster;

I will mock when calamity overtakes you- when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you.

"Then they will call to me but I will not answer; they will look for me but will not find me.

Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the LORD , since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke, they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes. For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them;

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring? Sure. But exercise gyms go against our evolutionary instincts to not expend large amounts of energy on acts that are no help to survival or reproduction. And why the heck do you think people get married now that it's culturally acceptable to stay single, if it's boring?

You find proof that the improved health (on average) gained from exercise does not aid in living a better or longer life, and that the sense of well-being is not attractive to potential mates, and I might believe your argument then.


Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole? Only for those that insist it's a purely Christian institution, and you have to admit those people would just go to the next thing on their list to complain about.


At least it would be one less thing on the list they'd complain about, one more thing they may have enlightened on, and the next thing on their list could be dealt with, too.

The way I understand it, and the way the bible teaches it, the message of Christ is one of hatred of the Reprobate, woe to sinners, and death and woe to mankind.

snip
so jesus had hate ... and here I thought he was perfect

so jesus had hate ... and here I thought he was perfect


God is perfect because He hates the reprobate, He hates the sinner!

Why did God cast Lucifer and the insurgent angels into hell? He hated them! If He loved them, only their sin would be in hell. He doesn't just condemn sin, He damns the sinners! Damns them to hell!

The notion that God doesn't hate, is pretty much knocked to hell when you figure that when the world was flooded, only Noah and 7 others were spared from the doom the waters brought. Hundreds of millions of people, day old infants, old folks, all killed for the sole reason it pleased God and He willed it to happen.

God owes man no explanation as to why He will ELECT some men over others. He owes the Reprobate nothing, and they get nothing, except His eternal hatred.

God is perfect because He hates the reprobate, He hates the sinner!

Why did God cast Lucifer and the insurgent angels into hell? He hated them! If He loved them, only their sin would be in hell. He doesn't just condemn sin, He damns the sinners! Damns them to hell!

The notion that God doesn't hate, is pretty much knocked to hell when you figure that when the world was flooded, only Noah and 7 others were spared from the doom the waters brought. Hundreds of millions of people, day old infants, old folks, all killed for the sole reason it pleased God and He willed it to happen.

God owes man no explanation as to why He will ELECT some men over others. He owes the Reprobate nothing, and they get nothing, except His eternal hatred.
Hmmm different pictorial of god then you normaly catch nowadays ... vengefull angry god ... at least it matches up a lot with the OT most christians dont like the picture that their god is a vengefull petty god.

God is perfect because He hates the reprobate, He hates the sinner!

Why did God cast Lucifer and the insurgent angels into hell? He hated them! If He loved them, only their sin would be in hell. He doesn't just condemn sin, He damns the sinners! Damns them to hell!

The notion that God doesn't hate, is pretty much knocked to hell when you figure that when the world was flooded, only Noah and 7 others were spared from the doom the waters brought. Hundreds of millions of people, day old infants, old folks, all killed for the sole reason it pleased God and He willed it to happen.

God owes man no explanation as to why He will ELECT some men over others. He owes the Reprobate nothing, and they get nothing, except His eternal hatred.

There's something painful in reading your comments here. Like looking at someone who doesn't know enough about love. I've been writing a quiz about loneliness. You seem a fitting example of its "Monstrous" category.

Hmmm different pictorial of god then you normaly catch nowadays ... vengefull angry god ... at least it matches up a lot with the OT most christians dont like the picture that their god is a vengefull petty god.

Most Christians are headed for hell, reprobates, they want to hear what makes them feel good. They want to be told God loves them, even while they know in their hearts, after church is over, they're going home with their neighbors wife. They want to be told God will forgive them, even though they know they're sodomites.

They want to be told things to make them feel warm and fuzzy and happy with their miserable life of sin and perversion. But the truth is a Calvinist one, if you're headed for hell, we'll tell you, we'll tell you and we won't hesitate to tell you so.

We'll preach it until the end of times, if you're headed for hell, expect no comfort and joy from our sermons. We don't tell it like you want to hear it, we tell it like it is. Mainstream Christians can't deal with how it is, so they pervert and twist the scriptures to support the false atrocious lie that Jesus Christ died for everybody and that God loves everybody, and that God hates the sin and not the sinner.

It's a new age form of satanism, misleading people with the lies of demons and false doctriens of the devil.


2 Timothy 3:1-8

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."


1 Timothy 4:1-2
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times many will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron."

Calvinism used to have millions, tens of millions, indeed most all Protestant churches in the USA used to preach the five points of Calvinism. Now they've abandoned it, and they spread the false doctrines of Arminianism and heresy, and they tell people who are reprobate, "You are going to heaven, God loves you! Donate now!" In a Calvinist church, you will never be lied to, if you are reprobate, you are not even welcome. You will never be bothered and asked for donations, there will be no collection plate shoved in your face, indeed your money is not welcome. God did ask people to donate money, but to believe, we are not justified through works (charity) but rather through faith alone. And faith is a gift bestowed upon the Elect of God, His to give to whom He wishes, when He wishes.

Most Christians are headed for hell, reprobates, they want to hear what makes them feel good. They want to be told God loves them, even while they know in their hearts, after church is over, they're going home with their neighbors wife
I find that most people that believe in a religion want to hear it because it makes them feel good in one way or another

I find that most people that believe in a religion want to hear it because it makes them feel good in one way or another
Yeah, and it gives them something to live by.

See, for me, I don't feel like I need a religion to tell me how to live. Therefore the existence or non-existance of a god is irrelevant to me because I would live my life the same.

And secondly, if god is so petty that he/she demands my devotion, then quite frankly I don't want to know about him/her.

Yeah, and it gives them something to live by.

See, for me, I don't feel like I need a religion to tell me how to live. Therefore the existence or non-existance of a god is irrelevant to me because I would live my life the same.

And secondly, if god is so petty that he/she demands my devotion, then quite frankly I don't want to know about him/her.
lot of the same feelings here ... I figure if there is a god he gave me enough of an internal compas that I just do what I think is right and I will be good to go if not so be it I will still help people because that is what I like doing and it does not hurt others so be it

Yeah, and it gives them something to live by.

See, for me, I don't feel like I need a religion to tell me how to live. Therefore the existence or non-existance of a god is irrelevant to me because I would live my life the same.

And secondly, if god is so petty that he/she demands my devotion, then quite frankly I don't want to know about him/her.


God doesn't demand anything from anybody, either you are pulled to Him by the Irresistible Grace, or you are not. If you're not, you're reprobate and aren't meant to see Him and find Him, not only that, but you're blinded to the truth of God and can never find Him.

Romans 11:7
What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the ELECT did. The others were blinded.

VoteEarly

You're right and also very wrong.

It is true most people now turn away from the seed of God they possess. I think it's a problem of confidence. They prefer not to believe because they don't think it's possible for everyone. And so they ignore or seek to debase the great.

However, you do not give them enough credit. YOU are the hatred. You are the weakness in your vision of God. He will choose those He exalts, yes. But He is an honorable parent and has given us the gift of inspiration, hoping it will guide more of His children to the greatest spirit of love.

Damnation will not be eternal, because He created us to learn.

God doesn't demand anything from anybody, either you are pulled to Him by the Irresistible Grace, or you are not. If you're not, you're reprobate and aren't meant to see Him and find Him, not only that, but you're blinded to the truth of God and can never find Him.

Romans 11:7
What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the ELECT did. The others were blinded.
if he does not demand something from you then why all the "get into heaven" rules

They are obviously the minimum requirements for your entrance into heaven

VoteEarly

You're right and also very wrong.

It is true most people now turn away from the seed of God they possess. I think it's a problem of confidence. They prefer not to believe because they don't think it's possible for everyone. And so they ignore or seek to debase the great.

However, you do not give them enough credit. YOU are the hatred. You are the weakness in your vision of God. He will choose those He exalts, yes. But He is an honorable parent and has given us the gift of inspiration, hoping it will guide more of His children to the greatest spirit of love.

Damnation will not be eternal, because He created us to learn.


This is worse heresey and blasphemy than Arminianism.

This is worse heresey and blasphemy than Arminianism.
And I say your flavor of belief is such too ... who is more right?

lot of the same feelings here ... I figure if there is a god he gave me enough of an internal compas that I just do what I think is right and I will be good to go if not so be it I will still help people because that is what I like doing and it does not hurt others so be it

Yes, I tend to agree.

All these passages he's quoting are quite amusing, and I must use them next time I have an argument with my conservative friend.

Yes, I tend to agree.

All these passages he's quoting are quite amusing, and I must use them next time I have an argument with my conservative friend.
yup arguing into the absurdem ... he is doing more for our point of view then he is for his :D

yup arguing into the absurdem ... he is doing more for our point of view then he is for his :D

Recuctio ad absurdum!

yup arguing into the absurdem ... he is doing more for our point of view then he is for his
And on why people feel they need religion.
I think some people just want to feel special and better than everyone else. :p

This is worse heresey and blasphemy than Arminianism.

I’ll give you worse, mate: The Bible is pure comical genius and taken way too seriously.

This is worse heresey and blasphemy than Arminianism.

If you are going to oppose me so vehemently, at least argue it. Don't just pass me off like that. If you think I'm wrong, have the courage to tell me why.

So, why do you think there is such a puny limit to His capacity for love. Why do you think He wouldn't want as many of His children to ascend as is possible?

/me waits and pushes the thread up

(1)Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?

(2)Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?

(3)Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?

(4)Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?

(5)Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?

(6)Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?

(7)Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?

(8)Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?


are you seriously asking these questions, or are you trying to illustrate a point? if you are illustrating a point then be more direct about your evidence, it will strengthen your case. not saying i would agree with it, but at least it's more fun to read than a bunch of questions you typed up. if you seriously are looking for answers to these questions, then i will attempt to answer them.

1) not for the man but yes for a woman, but as it has been said before, marriage is not about sex. it does go against the natural urges of all creatures (that is to reproduce), and is rather a social institution. however, it does in a sense promote the value of each individual offspring. a man with one child by one woman will spend more time with his one child than a man with 10 children by 10 women, thus improving the quality of life for that one child and giving him an advantage over his competitors to reproduce.

2) spreading our DNA without restriction to the point of over population does not benefit the vitality of the species.

3) i dont see why this would have been. it could just as easily have been so that men take responsibilty for their own young, and teach them the necessary skills of being a male (lets not forget marriage's religious nature)

4) the woman (or whoever is doing the said work) benefits from the work herself. she cleans for HER family and cooks for HER family, and is naturally interested in the well being of her offspring. her reward is the success of her offspring

5) as much as i am trying not to mention it, marriage does stem from religion, and is a religious institution more than anything else. people just arent keeping it as holy as it has been in the past (with high divorce rates and what not)

6) you could. you would destroy the family unit, encourage irresponsibility on the part of the parents and jack up taxes, but you could. weigh these consequences, and pick up a copy of 1984 (note the Junior Spies)

7) your question asked last makes me wonder why on earth you would ask this question. are you implying that once you are married you are stuck with that person forever? well you cant be, because you answer your own question by admitting divorce rates are "sky high". dont waste a question.

8) it proves that people no longer take care in choosing a wife or husband. people marry for money, career moves, almost anything other than love. if marriage is obsolete, then people would be incapable of loving each other. they aren't, so no marriage is not obsolete.

Is it natural for two people to only have sex with each other for 50 or 60 years?
I dont know when I am going to die, but I plan on having sex till then. That's why they have viagra.

Doesn't this go against our evolutionary instincts to spread our DNA wide and far to promote the health and vitality of the spieces, as well as being incredibly boring?
People go against evolutionary instincts all the time. I personally don't plan on having kids. And it sounds boring and some people might get bored, but I have seen old couples that seem like they are very happy and not very bored, but they have also travelled a lot.

Isn't marriage simply a relic of an earlier era so that men could control their women's sex lives so they would be sure of the legitamacy of their children so that private property could be passed on to their (male) children?
I'm pretty sure that is how it started but things can change.

Doesn't marriage oppress women by forcing them to a do thousands of hours of unpaid work like feeding kids, doing laundary, cooking and cleaning etc?
Marriage can oppress both the man and the woman, but it does not always. My wife works and gets paid very well. I cook and sometimes clean, but I enjoy it most of the time. Well not really the cleaning, but I don't mind. We share money, it's just like me getting paid.

Doesn't marriage promote heterosexism, religous dogmatism and reactionary thinking as a whole?
Stupid people promote stupid things. Some people use marriage to promote things, but it is the people not the act of marriage. I guess it just all depends on how you look at it. Marriage lets people know that the relationship is serious and it is kind of like being taken off the market, permanetly... well it's supposed to. It makes everything legally owned by both partners and the spouse has rights over the family. It gives the spouse the power to make medical and legal decisions, unless stated otherwise.

Why couldn't we extend the public school system to include free nusery schools for toddlers, and adequate after school programs for older kids so that women would not be forced to chose between a career and having kids?
Because someone has to pay for it and people have tough choices to make sometimes.

Couldn't we adopt other forms of contracts between two people that are perhaps not as severe as marriage, so that people would not be so trapped with people who they grow to dislike, who are abusive, or they are otherwise no longer compatible with?
People in marriages are not trapped, by any legal contracts. They may be trapped by their beliefs, but otherwise they can get out of it.

Don't sky high divorce rates and widespread infidelity prove marriage is an obsolete and archaic institution?
No, it proves that people make poor decisions and sometimes change. It just shows that people are not putting up with as much crap as they used to.

I didn't read the entire theard, so if the things I've said have been said already, sorry. I do not think marriage is always great and everyone should do it, infact up until about a year ago, I had never planned on getting married. But marriage can be great and I've enjoyed my first year of it. I do not know if I will be with my wife forever, but I expect to. I think we will be one of those old couples who have travelled everywhere and still enjoy life a lot... just without social security.

God is perfect because He hates the reprobate, He hates the sinner!

Why did God cast Lucifer and the insurgent angels into hell? He hated them! If He loved them, only their sin would be in hell. He doesn't just condemn sin, He damns the sinners! Damns them to hell!

The notion that God doesn't hate, is pretty much knocked to hell when you figure that when the world was flooded, only Noah and 7 others were spared from the doom the waters brought. Hundreds of millions of people, day old infants, old folks, all killed for the sole reason it pleased God and He willed it to happen.

God owes man no explanation as to why He will ELECT some men over others. He owes the Reprobate nothing, and they get nothing, except His eternal hatred.


hate is a human emotion. are you saying God is even capable of hate? God floods the earth, and lots of people die, but the world was also full of sin, would you not agree? He wanted to teach the world a lesson, not arbitrarily kill off so many people. if he wanted to do that, then why did he spare Noah who (according to many) is thought of as a drunk? in fact, why even create a human race just to hate them? God wouldn't do that. it goes against His nature. and where in the Bible does it say that God was pleased with the destruction of these people.


also if you are Calvinist (forgive my ignorance if there is any), but why do you say "He will ELECT some men over others." I thought Calvinists held to predestination, which mean that these men have already been elected.

hate is a human emotion. are you saying God is even capable of hate? God floods the earth, and lots of people die, but the world was also full of sin, would you not agree? He wanted to teach the world a lesson, not arbitrarily kill off so many people. if he wanted to do that, then why did he spare Noah who (according to many) is thought of as a drunk? in fact, why even create a human race just to hate them? God wouldn't do that. it goes against His nature. and where in the Bible does it say that God was pleased with the destruction of these people.


also if you are Calvinist (forgive my ignorance if there is any), but why do you say "He will ELECT some men over others." I thought Calvinists held to predestination, which mean that these men have already been elected.


I meant to say, "He Elected some men over others" past tense, but it's really late and I've a headache, so I need to go to sleep. I have to get up in 5 hours anyway to get to work and then get to classes after work, so I have to go. I'll reply with a bunch of stuff later.

What I particularly love are the outdated ideals by which this "Is marriage obsolete?" question is asked.

Perhaps if we jumped back to say 1930, then these questions might be relevant. Plenty of other people have already put forth excellent answers to these questions but for the sake of putting in my 2 cents I'll also give my answers.

1) Why is it not natural? There are numerous species that take lifelong partners... the entire animal kingdom isn't out to shag everything else that moves.

2) Why would it be boring? I'm married, I don't find anything boring about it. Besides, who said getting married stopped you from taking just the one partner? There are many people (my wife and I don't happen to be in this group) who explore open relationships.

3) I have no idea, not that I particularly care. Marriage is what it is now not what it was sometime in the past.

4) Oppress who? My wife certainly doesn't do "thousands of unpaid hours" of work any more than I do... we each do a share of the daily household chores, we don't do the same work but we do equal amounts.

5) Only if you take the narrow Christian view of it. There was absolutely no Christian references in our wedding, it was a rather pagan/celtic affair.

6) I wasn't aware that women were being forced to choose between raising kids and having a career. There are a number of women where I work that have had kids and came back to work after maternity leave. I guess that's the reason there is such a thing as maternity leave after all, so that a woman is able to give birth and nurse her newborn through those early months and still have a job when she returns.

7) Civil unions, de facto, "open" marriages... or just don't get married at all. Plenty of options... and getting a divorce is pretty easy these days.

8) No, it just shows that there are plenty of people (I daresay like yourself) who hold outdated views of marriage and get a rather rude shock when they find it is just not like that any more.

For whatever reason, there are many (at least from my experience anyway) that hold marriage as some miraculous thing that prevents people from falling out of love and that generally makes everything wonderful. My advice is to stop watching 50's movies and get with the times.

The greatest physical difference between my wife and I from the day before we got married compared to the day after was that we wore wedding rings.

The emotional level of our relationship didn't change.

In fact, the only thing getting married changed was our legal status and the amount of money we owed :p

Y'know, this is going to sound really rude, but I AM SICK of being PREACHED at! If I wanted to hear about going to hell, I'd go to church.
Anybody agree?

And anyway, it clearly says in I Corinthians 7:37-38 : "But if he [any man] has decided firmly not to marry and there is no urgency and he can control his passion, he does well not to marry. So the person who marries does well, and THE PERSON WHO DOESN'T MARRY DOES EVEN BETTER." (NLT) (emphasis mine, of course)

And anyway, it clearly says in I Corinthians 7:37-38 : "But if he [any man] has decided firmly not to marry and there is no urgency and he can control his passion, he does well not to marry. So the person who marries does well, and THE PERSON WHO DOESN'T MARRY DOES EVEN BETTER." (NLT) (emphasis mine, of course)
but there's a catch: it's only better to remain unmarried if you are also going to remain celebate.

VoteEarly, please tell me what sect you're in, so I can avoid its preachers on the streets.

Seriously, you're scary.

but there's a catch: it's only better to remain unmarried if you are also going to remain celebate.


Uh, yeah, you've got a point.
Oh well, nobody's perfect! including me!

VoteEarly, please tell me what sect you're in, so I can avoid its preachers on the streets.

Seriously, you're scary.
One of thoes silly calvanists if I remember

One of thoes silly calvanists if I remember

Yeah, and a member of the CCC. I'm sick to death of John fricken Calvin...

as i said before gorrillas are polygamist by instinct. MORMON MONKEYS!