Abolish Marriage

I half agree with this idea, but for different reasons from the OP.

I think that marriage as defined-by-the-government is a silly concept because marriage is more of a religious institution than a civil institution.

Arguments for common law marriages are still marriage-defined-by-government. The common law is merely the law as determined by the decisions of judges in court cases that have been decided for centuries.

Marriage is a personal and private concept. The notion of marriage licenses, taxes, or whatever is just silly. This is especially true in a society that no longer attaches stigma to out-of-wedlock children.


As for Star Forge's anti-reproduction stance.... I would just like to point out that all philosophies which are anti-reproduction have this strange tendency to die out.

Perhaps you can figure out why?

What's sad is I wrote my last post while I don't even believe in marriage as the institution it is. The point of it was something I'm sure everyone is seeing in these kinds of posts... it's not so much the message as it is the delivery and it makes the message itself look ridiculous (sometimes even extremist) even if the intended message isn't.

My views on marriage: It has turned into a trendy institution out here in the states. Partly because of this, most mainstream marriage seems to be biased toward Christianity. For the most part, I don't see the common marriage as some "spiritual bond by the hands of God", but rather a legal contract of distrust and insecurity. Though most couples will avoid to acknowledge such a feeling in the front of their minds, in the back of their minds is where all the marriage jokes many of us have heard come from because they do in fact tend feel much the same (not just the men but the women alike in many cases). It's also unfair a lot of the things a person is legally rejected because they are not "legally married". It feels like a way to force the institution on people who don't necessarily need it or want it, but might need the legal hand that comes with it.

However, I'm not going to start spouting to people that it should be abolished...

ren wrote: My short conclusion: Modern marriage has cheapened the "promise" (to stay together for ever) by wanting to make such a big deal out of it. Now its about dresses, parties, ceremonies, approval of the family, etc. Marriage and divorce are so complex that going through it, or the fear of going through it, can put an end to what could have been life long relationships. Not everyone can get married. The people who can't have been conditionned to think that they are not capable of making a life long promise (and therefore don't make one). I say bring back the life long commitment and abolish all the useless and harmful rest.

I sometimes think that divorce should be outlawed and that marriage should be for life. Meaning, you could separate from your spouse in most respects but you should remain technically married and unable to marry again. This seems like the only way of bringing back true life-long commitments for a lot of people who jump into marriage knowing that they can get out of it with a divorce if they need to.

However, this would a) have complicated legal ramifications (e.g. sorting out money/property issues etc) which would need to be accounted for, and b) I know that there are many people here who have been through a divorce and remarried and will have a completely different take on it. This makes me unable to come to a conclusion one way or the other. It would be interesting to hear what someone previously divorced has to say about marriage, if anyone was to feel like adding to the discussion.

This is a catch 22 and therefore it is improbable that the "right answer" could be found by anyone. This is essentially a worse topic then Einstein's conceived grandfather paradox in-which one is to go back in time and kill his/her grandfather or grandmother thus eliminating the events leading to the killers birth in the first place.

I believe I have successfully refuted all claims for and against marriage.

-Personally I think "marriage" is only a name that we use to identify with the sacred bond between 2 people. Star Forge, you must then check the credibility of your thesis. I don't think you know exactly what you are arguing for or against.

More so you wrote:
"I forgot to mention that marriage facilitates reproduction, which is bad..."
-You would not be here to state your case if not for reproduction.

Personally, I think future follow up to this type of uneducated statement should be avoided. I should think that Star Forge might just be attempting to get a "rise" out of a weak individual, yet I believe you will find our Jedi nature deters us from succumbing to a weak-minded response.

I think that marriage as defined-by-the-government is a silly concept because marriage is more of a religious institution than a civil institution.

Marriage increasingly became a religious institution and was finally absorbed by the catholic church in 15xx. In my country, marriage has been exclusively civil (as in only the state can do it) since 1792.

Marriage became more and more regulated, by kings, by the church, by the governments. Usually the majority (or the powerful) want to crack down in the minority (or the weak). This resulted in homsexual bans, interracial bans, non-christian-at-church-by-a-priest bans, etc.

Arguments for common law marriages are still marriage-defined-by-government.

In some places yes, In the UK no. Common law marriage essentially means concubinage.

Star Forge wrote: Abolish marriage now.

I'd only consider abolishing something like marriage if it was forced onto people, but then it wouldn't really be marriage as we know it. The concept of abolishing something like marriage when is not mandated but rather the free choice of the participants seems a ridiculious statement. Why abolish the rights of two people to get married - blaming thousands of years of different cultural history is irrelevant unless symbolism is the only thing you think is of importance.

ren wrote: I would like all of you to step outside that box and reconsider the validity of marriage.

Its what you make it. I'm not married but have been effectively been married to the same person for over 15 years.... the paperwork and rings etc seem unnecassary. We just have simple contract law agreements to handle division of assets if we seperate. If we had children that might change, because its just easier to integrate into society as a traditional family for the childs upbringing. One day we might do a 'ritual' to try some sort of spiritual bond, but the culture from which marriage emerged has long gone.

Kind of off topic but something just struck me that I thought I should point out. You have a clear hatred for creationists for forcing their views onto people, yet you've created two threads in which you very passionately tried to get us to follow your thinking (stop reproducing, get rid of marriage) and you sometimes get offended when someone doesn't open their mind to your views and you keep telling people to open their minds even though you aren't doing that to the creationsts point of view.....anyone else notice this?

Once again, sorry for drifting off topic...just felt it needed to be said. Continue...

Hadi Apollos wrote: Kind of off topic but something just struck me that I thought I should point out. You have a clear hatred for creationists for forcing their views onto people, yet you've created two threads in which you very passionately tried to get us to follow your thinking (stop reproducing, get rid of marriage) and you sometimes get offended when someone doesn't open their mind to your views and you keep telling people to open their minds even though you aren't doing that to the creationsts point of view.....anyone else notice this?

Once again, sorry for drifting off topic...just felt it needed to be said. Continue...

I would like to share my views as I believe they are right. The same can be said of most anybody. However, notice that I am speaking only on behalf of myself, and that I am not trying to legislate my morality. Creationist try to speak for all Christianity, and have tried numerous times to legislate their beliefs into the education system here in the US. Big difference.

Star Forge wrote:

Hadi Apollos wrote: Kind of off topic but something just struck me that I thought I should point out. You have a clear hatred for creationists for forcing their views onto people, yet you've created two threads in which you very passionately tried to get us to follow your thinking (stop reproducing, get rid of marriage) and you sometimes get offended when someone doesn't open their mind to your views and you keep telling people to open their minds even though you aren't doing that to the creationsts point of view.....anyone else notice this?

Once again, sorry for drifting off topic...just felt it needed to be said. Continue...

I would like to share my views as I believe they are right. The same can be said of most anybody. However, notice that I am speaking only on behalf of myself, and that I am not trying to legislate my morality. Creationist try to speak for all Christianity, and have tried numerous times to legislate their beliefs into the education system here in the US. Big difference.

That's interesting, after having seen a thread (and hijacking thread replies) by you in the past saying you are the "real" Jedi as opposed to us on these boards.

Give it up Star Forge.
I have seen you contradict yourself numerous times.
There is no point in attempting to provoke and tempt our temple members.
I urge you to take your troubled matters and meditate on them rather then insult people and their beliefs. What your doing is unjust and you seem to be manipulating a loophole in the Jedi code.

We can't turn you away because that would be against our vary nature, but our temple members are good people who don't deserve to be ridiculed for their beliefs.

Star Forge: "I will continue to call creationists retarded because that is what they are."

-That is not an acceptable means of communication. Name calling is rather low on the intelligent debate tactics scale. I urge you to seek other ways to take out your obvious frustrations.