Is MARRIAGE becoming an OUTDATED institution?

[RyanH]

According to a recent study I came across in the TIMES a few weeks ago, all across Europe, more and more Europeans are opting not to marry. The definition of what constitutes a family continues to expand, precluding the traditional notions of a family as "mom and dad"---instead including more modern notions of just "mom" and kids. The following are some of the highlights that were reported:

--Half the kids in Norway have parents who are single or living together. 49% of all births in 1999 were to unwed parents. In Iceland the figure was 62%. In France it was 41% and in Britain it was 38%.

--Even in Ireland, a traditionally Catholic country, 31% of births since 1999 have taken place outside of marriage---a figure matched by the United States.

---Also, public figures themselves are demonstrating the success of the individual themselves. Prime Minister Blair's chief spokesman has three children with his companion.

--In Ireland, the prime minister has been with his companion, the de facto first lady of the country, for a number of years.

--In Norway, an unmarried member of Parliament, became pregnant while she served as the country's oil minister and is now raising her son on her own. And, the country's own crown prince lived with his girlfriend, a single mother with a toddler, before finally marrying her last year.

Now my view of the situation here in America: While President Bush seeks to expand government and carry the mantle of the "BIG GOVERNMENT PRESIDENT" by enacting government programs to promote marriage, other countries are promoting the indivdiual with laws favorable to both single parents and to unmarried companions.

Isn't it time, Americans consider following some of Europe's policies by finally recogning that marriage has failed to solve many of our society's domestic problems? For example, thousands of children with married parents often commit crimes and develop substance abuse problems, while often many children from single parent homes become model citizens.

By enacting more equitable laws for single parents and providing more government assistance, Americans too, would finally see that marriage is not always necessary for a healthy society and moreover, the individual can triumph as well, if given the same equal opportunities....

Ryan.

 

[Norman Bates]

Isn't it time, Americans consider following some of Europe's policies by finally recogning that marriage has failed to solve many of our society's domestic problems? For example, thousands of children with married parents often commit crimes and develop substance abuse problems, while often many children from single parent homes become model citizens.

Do you really think there is a link between married parents and criminal children?

I don´t wnat to marry, for i don´t want to do a vow for all eternity.

 

[Bikini Mod]

Though I still personally believe in the institution of marriage, I have to say that I am not anit-NOT marriage (Did that make any sense?).

I have yet to have a piece of paper tell me how to be a woman OR a mother. Sadly, there are too many people out there that need JUST THAT - and even then can't seem to figure it out.

A legal document is only as binding as the character of the individuals who have consented by putting their signature on the dotted line.

I don't think that laws that would treat single and non-married parents equivalent to those parents that are married to be a bad thing. I believe that perhaps it would actually be A GOOD THING.

If a couple wants to live in a traditional sense, good for them. If, however, they opt to do things in a less traditional sense, I think it should be "equally good".

Call me crazy, but it seems to make sense.

Too many women have suffered in HORRENDOUS marital situations because of the serious limitations (both by being looked down upon by society - YES, IT DOES STILL HAPPEN as well not having laws that give them favorable status - ie - the dead beat dad, etc) that leaving the relationship would put on them and their children. And PUH-LEASE DO NOT GIVE ME ANOTHER "SHE TOOK EVERYTHING AND I GOT SCREWED" STORY... CAUSE GET WHAT? I AIN'T BUYIN' IT.

 

[manny78]

Marriage is outdated from a long time. Of course for religious people it can still have some meaning, but even for moderate like me it doesnt. I mean I know people who lived their entire life together in a very happy way without being married at all.

 

[Taps]

Yeah, it's outdated. All that shit Manny said goes for me too.

 

[Lao Tzu]

marriage is sick. Its just the state, society & the church recognizing your union, like that makes it any more or less valid than it was before.


I will never marry. I would be happy with a kick ass roommate who i could have sex with every now and then.

 

[Zirakzigil]

Why do you always CAPITALIZE certain WORDS in your titles, Ryan? Are your threads more important than anyone else's?

 

[-SD-]

Ryan, what are your views concerning same sex marriages?

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: Is MARRIAGE becoming an OUTDATED institution?

Do you really think there is a link between married parents and criminal children?

I don´t wnat to marry, for i don´t want to do a vow for all eternity.

I don't believe that to be the case at all......I'm simply pointing out that there is not always a coorelation between marriage and healthy, law abiding children. Many conservatives argue that the typical family will solve many of our society's ills, they have been proven wrong time and time again.

 

[RyanH]

Though I still personally believe in the institution of marriage, I have to say that I am not anit-NOT marriage (Did that make any sense?).

I have yet to have a piece of paper tell me how to be a woman OR a mother. Sadly, there are too many people out there that need JUST THAT - and even then can't seem to figure it out.

A legal document is only as binding as the character of the individuals who have consented by putting their signature on the dotted line.

I don't think that laws that would treat single and non-married parents equivalent to those parents that are married to be a bad thing. I believe that perhaps it would actually be A GOOD THING.

Absolutely, Bikinimom. Why a piece of paper is needed to legitimize the union between two people is a mystery to many of us. However, many people do somehow find it necessary or fulfilling, and they have every right to feel that way.

I simply believe that the individual is often treated less favorably than the marital couple is---that needs to change, as it has in some of Europe.

It is unjust when many of us are punished throuh unfair inheritance laws or even tax law simply because we have chosen another way to live our lives.

 

[RyanH]

Why do you always CAPITALIZE certain WORDS in your titles, Ryan? Are your threads more important than anyone else's?

Why do you often ask irrelevant questions?

 

[RyanH]

Ryan, what are your views concerning same sex marriages?

I would never marry either a man or a woman since I simply do not see the point. However, both gay and straight couples ought to receive the equal treatment if they do, in fact, choose the institution of marriage. Thus, I am a proponent of same-sex marriages.

 

[Bikini Mod]

I agree.

If a couple WANTS to marry (regardless of gender, two consenting adults) then they should be allowed. HOWEVER, if a couple does NOT feel the need to have thier relationship "validated" by law (as if this REALLY matters) then they should not be legally penalized.

 

[vixenbabe]

If anything ever happened to my hubby, GOD FORBID, I would never get married again....

TAKES TOO DAMN LONG TO TRAIN MEN RIGHT!

 

[WODIN]

I consider myself a lucky man to have as wonderful a wife as I do. Going on 15 Years, 2 of which have been pretty good! (joke)....

 

[decem]

well.. i used to be on the "i'm never going to marry bandwagon".. and.. i'm now getting married in one month to the day.. not for me.. but for her. i'm not religious (as most know), i don't feel a need to bind my relationship into law, and i'm actually kinda scared of the circumstances of doing so. but she needed it.. that's how she views her life as being complete.. if she's married.. she didn't force me into it.. i just knew that i couldn't ask her to move back from san fran to ohio again without giving her that..

so i sacrificed.. there's no telling what's going to happen.. i'd like to think we'd last forever.. but as with 40-50% of all marriages now.. that just isn't the case.. and i always took on a faithful, married type mindset if you will.. when we were just living together.. so in that sense.. it's not killing me.. we get a tax break.. so that's a good thing.. we'll have fun in vegas when we get married.. another good thing.. we'll get gifts from people we don't know and it'll alllow us to pay off some debt.. so that's a good thing..

i guess the only reason i'm telling you that is because there's very good possibility that you too will someday change your minds on marriage.. it's not all bad.. there is some good..


what type of more equitable laws for single parents are you considering though ryan? don't single parents receive more assistance than married couples as it is?

also.. i find your point regarding kids from married vs. single homes and their value to society is null and void.. even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.. even a kid from a single parent grows up to be good sometimes..

has marriage really failed to solve many of our society's domestic problems? after all.. think back to the 30's-60's when the divorce rate was MUCH lower.. how many social problems were around back then? as a matter of fact.. couldn't it be said that it was the degradation of the perceived importance of marriage in society that has led society to where it is??

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

There is some confusion here.. There is a difference in marriage of the law, and marriage of gods blessing. Don't confuse the two. I believe in common law marriages.. Marriage is the eyes of the law is a means of creating a healthier environment for children. How can you be pro child, and anti-marriage at the same time? Its very common in these days for people to selectively choose the laws they'd like to follow, and assume anything they don't agree with should not apply to them.

In any case, if you dont give a shit about God, thats your own problem.. I dont care.. But there are reasons other than religion that marriage is institution recognized by the law. I doubt that will ever change either...

Were your parents married when they had you?

 

[musclebrains]

Marriage was first a way of regulating inheritance and it then became a means of enforcing the morality of the dominant culture -- in everything from child-rearing to sexual comportment (mandatory monogamy under the adultery laws).

"Family values" is often a coded expression for the nostalgic perpetuation of misogynstic and sex-phobic agendas, including the belief that society will degenerate into chaos if pleasure is not regulated through marriage. Psychology and religion ally themselves in America against unconventional relationships and means of child-rearing though there is utterly no evidence (but plenty of "intuition") that the state's sanction and the classic two-parent, mixed-sex household are necessary to maintaining a cohesive society.

I have worked with several divorcing couples recently and I have been astounded at the way the new "mediation" laws, far from aiding relatively friendly departures, often seem to inflame blame, to pressure people to stay married, etc. I'm unclear whether this is the intent of the law or is inside the culture of judges, lawyers and professional mediators administering the system. I went to one hearing recently and had to repeatedly remind the officials that my clients were divorcing amiably, had agreed upon a property settlement, even if their lawyers didn't, and that they were there to demonstrate that, not to legitimate their wish to divorce.

 

[musclebrains]

has marriage really failed to solve many of our society's domestic problems? after all.. think back to the 30's-60's when the divorce rate was MUCH lower.. how many social problems were around back then? as a matter of fact.. couldn't it be said that it was the degradation of the perceived importance of marriage in society that has led society to where it is??

The 60s gave women control of their bodies by giving them control of contraception. The so-called sexual revolution began the sabotage of the subservient role of women that was absolutely enforced in the marriage and family laws.

You could argue that the empowerment of women, along with the open deployment of the body for sexual pleasure, "degraded" marriage and resulted in a social revolution, yes.

But how are you going to return to a social organization of the past by -- what? -- making marriage mandatory, by making it harder to divorce, by putting (as Bush's Administration clearly wants) the body in the control of the state?

Life was also simpler, easier to negotiate, when the social classes were divided by state sanction. Wanna return to that too?

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

"Family values" is often a coded expression for the nostalgic perpetuation of misogynstic and sex-phobic agendas, including the belief that society will degenerate into chaos if pleasure is not regulated through marriage. Psychology and religion ally themselves in America against unconventional relationships and means of child-rearing though there is utterly no evidence (but plenty of "intuition") that the state's sanction and the classic two-parent, mixed-sex household are necessary to maintaining a cohesive society.

John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence one said "Consider all morality in general is conformity to a law."

Laws against murder, rape, stealing, child pornography, kidnaping, etc. are all laws that are legislating morality. These laws forbid people to murder, rape, steal, exploit children, kidnap, etc.

I know what you are thinking. "Just because you legislate morality does not mean people will obey the law." That is true, but just because everyone does not obey the morality of the law, thou shall not murder, does not mean we eliminate the laws on murder. If that were the case we would have no laws and everyone would do what was right in his own eyes.

People can choose to have children out of wed-lock.. that is their choice, but why does that mean marriage laws should be ablolished, because at the end of the day, most people still believe in it.

 

[bigguns7]

has marriage really failed to solve many of our society's domestic problems? after all.. think back to the 30's-60's when the divorce rate was MUCH lower.. how many social problems were around back then? as a matter of fact.. couldn't it be said that it was the degradation of the perceived importance of marriage in society that has led society to where it is??

Well said decem, and not a hint of insult towards Christians. Are you feeling alright?

 

[musclebrains]

John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence one said "Consider all morality in general is conformity to a law."

Laws against murder, rape, stealing, child pornography, kidnaping, etc. are all laws that are legislating morality. These laws forbid people to murder, rape, steal, exploit children, kidnap, etc.

I know what you are thinking. "Just because you legislate morality does not mean people will obey the law." That is true, but just because everyone does not obey the morality of the law, thou shall not murder, does not mean we eliminate the laws on murder. If that were the case we would have no laws and everyone would do what was right in his own eyes.

People can choose to have children out of wed-lock.. that is their choice, but why does that mean marriage laws should be ablolished, because at the end of the day, most people still believe in it.

All societies tend to legislate the moral values of the dominant culture, yes. More enlightened societies, like the comparatively progressive ones of the European Union, change their laws when these moral principles, which are by def cultural-bound, change. If you want to argue that there is a set of essentialist moral principles that the state ought to be enforcing, I can't argue with you because I don't believe that applies in this case. Your choice of the expression "children out of wedlock" itself presupposes a moral transgression, I think.

And, yes, I agree that most people believe in the marriage laws and that they aren't going to be abolished. I dont' think that's what Ryan was advocating. He was advocating leveling the playing field by giving individuals the same advantages that the state grants married people to reward their compliance with the domininant culture's values.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

He was advocating leveling the playing field by giving individuals the same advantages that the state grants married people to reward their compliance with the domininant culture's values.

Hmmm That's interesting.. Now you are treading in some very dangerous territory.. Suppose that we appealed to whim of every group who did not follow the domininant culture's values?

Comon, child abuse isn't so bad... why should I be punished for hitting my kid with a belt... Lets descriminalized child abuse..

That mother took my crack, he deserved to pumped full of lead..
Lets repeal murder laws... because that guy deserved it IMO.

Man, that girl wanted sex, you should have seen the dress she was wearing... Lets relax rape laws...


You cant always give people what they want... People sometimes want things that are BAD for them.. go figure.

Thats why we have laws, and further thats why we have legislation that supports those laws...

Hey, if you dont like the group you hang out with,leave.. Im sure the europeans would love to have you.

 

[Bikini Mod]

People can choose to have children out of wed-lock.. that is their choice, but why does that mean marriage laws should be ablolished, because at the end of the day, most people still believe in it.

Yes, there was also a time when MOST people believed that it was perfectly acceptable to LITERALLY OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. Wasn't all that long ago. Remember? It was called slavery.

I agree w/Musclebrains in that I don't think that Ryan is advocating abolishing laws that support marriage.

As for what Musclebrains stated about mediation and lawyers, etc making divorce MORE DIFFICULT in that they ACTUALLY ADD FUEL to what often times is already the smoldering ashes of a once loving relationship or actually CREATE ADVERSITY where none was present, it is SAD BUT TRUE. In my state there is no such thing as "no fault" divorce (with the exception of a couple living separately with no sex between them for 18 months). This means that THE ENTIRE FAMILY must either A) "make up stuff" or portray already painful events in a fashion that is derogatory enough to the other side that THEIR side is looked upon more favorably (for custody issues) or B) LIVE IN LIMBO until the time period is up AND THEN begin the divorce proceedings. Either way IT IS HELL.

It has been OVER A YEAR since I TOLD my ex that we were over, but because I did not have the backbone to file the ppwrk (I was VERY SHORT on backbone for most of my life.) it made it very easy for events to become skewed and have all the drama dragged out.

We did try mediation back in December. After one session, after my ex left the building the mediator (who my ex suggested that came VERY HIGHLY recommended TO HIM... I liked her as well) told me that though it was her job to try and remain partial she could CLEARLY SEE that he was trying to screw me and our children but that she could not LEGALLY say this as it would compromise her impartiality. If the courts and my ex's lawyer would only be as "fair" as this mediator (who neither of us went back to see as I could tell from our first session that it would only be a waste of time and money as my ex is STILL desperately trying to get out of what the law will decide ANYWAY - I get HALF. Yes HALF - I will get no more. THE LAW IS THE LAW.) they would have layed the smack down on him and all of this would have been over AT LEAST six months ago. My children and I would no longer be in fear or limbo and my ex would have no choice but to move on.

See, I still say that my ex is NOT a bad guy. He isn't AT ALL. And my marriage was NOT a bad thing. I am today BECAUSE of who I married, and for THAT I AM QUITE THANKFUL!... but it was over a long time ago and no amount of work could have repaired the damage that was done early last year.

If the courts and the lawyers weren't so consumed with MAKING MONEY - TO HELL WITH WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILDREN - I believe that EVERYONE would view marriage as well as divorce in a much different light.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Bikini

You obviously thought marriage was right at one time or another..

 

[RyanH]

Not long ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that illegitimate children are entitled to the same inheritance rights that children of marital couples are entitled to---for decades illegitimate children were denied inheritance simply because their parents were not married.

Contrast that, with a decision by the Supreme Court a few years ago (a California case) where Justice Scalia writing for the majority refused to recognize custody rights for a child born from an adulterous affair since the mother was still married to her husband at the time of the affair. Instead, the mother and her husband were entitled to custody of the child, whereas the natural father did not receive any custodial rights. Justice Scalia wrote that to reward custody to anyone besides the marital couple would not further the interest of the family-----that's still the law of our land, fortunately many state legislatures have changed their laws in response to that decision---but not all states have done so.

Also, it has been very common in our courts to wage war on homosexual unions. There are many court cases on the books where companions of many years are denied any inheritance rights, instead the desceased's disapproving family often ends up with everything (EVEN IN THE FACE OF A TESTATOR'S INTENT LEAVING EVERYTHING TO HIS COMPANION).

These are the unjustices I'm speaking of, I am in no way advocating the abolishment of marriage, only equal and fair treatment for everyone.

Good points MB, Louisiana also recently made it harder for its citizens to obtain a divorce. These types of unions are called covenant marriages, but in reality they can become prison sentences to two bickering, belligerant spouses.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

It all comes back to fear of commitment... ahhh this sounds like more of the old 70's free love... what ever makes me feel good...

In order to recieve any benefit (i.e. tax breaks, health care) , it would have to be legal relationship.. to be legal it would have to be legally binding, there would have to be some kind of public record kept ates

there would something else besides marriage, but it would be the same thing.. (a legal union).

this is really just a semantic battle that is flavored anti-religion.. you can call it anything thing else, but thats all it is.

 

[Bikini Mod]

Bikini

You obviously thought marriage was right at one time or another..

And I still do. I am not ANTI-MARRIAGE AT ALL. I am only saying what Ryan H is saying. That non-legally married but no less committed relationships should have the same priviliges that unions that a piece of paper has "legitimized".

When I was younger I did very much feel the need to have my relationship accepted and legitimized in society by that piece of paper. Had I to do it all over again, perhaps I would not have been in such a rush to "grow up". I wanted more than anything to have my relationship w/my ex viewed as a full-on committed adult relationship because that is how I VIEWED IT and TREATED IT until it was irrepairably damaged.

Now I am nearly fourteen years older and no longer feel the need to have ANYTHING I do validated or legitimized by anyone but ME and MY GIRLS. However, I would NEVER live under the same roof with another man unless we WERE LEGALLY MARRIED. Kind of puts me in a bind, does it not? It isn't for society, but for the sake of my children. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think it proper FOR ME to live with a man unless we are married.... Stipulations such as this can and are commonly put in a divorce decree when there are children involved.

I do have friends who have children that were never married. My children DO KNOW EXACTLY HOW A BABY IS MADE. As a matter of fact my 8 year old had a bit of a quandry as she thought that if I married a man than that meant that I would DEFINITELY have another baby because THEY KNOW that sex is a part of marriage (They are not old enough to separate adult sex from sex within a marriage... when the time is proper, I will explain this to them also as I do NOT want my daughters to feel the need to "fall in love" with ANY GUY because they feel the need to justify sex with love.). I enlightened her that couples can do things to prevent pregnancy and still have sex. She was quite surprize and relieved. heheheheee

 

[decem]

i didn't see anywhere in ryan's post where he mentioned the mandatory mediation laws.. which i am absolutely against..

musclebrains.. great posts man.. but you did step around my question.. i'm somewhat ignorant to the laws.. but from what i've seen and understand.. a single parent gets the same if not more govt assistance... whether through tax breaks or programs (wic..etc).. you have a legal background.. could you please shed light on this.. are married parents getting that much more assistance or breaks? why should an unwed, single parent receive MORE assistance?

more of my vies.. gay companions should absolutely be entitled to inheritance.. should be allowed to marry.. should be allowed to adopt.. and covenant marriages suck..




bigguns.. i figured i'd drop that gig for awhile.. i only do it to piss off dgreenhill anyway..

 

[naturally anabolic]

i still would like to know how the institution of marriage is recognized by the government when marriage was a religious ceremony to begin with and they are supposed to seperate church and state... that has never made sense to me.....but my views are as follows:

i do not believe you need a priest,judge,law-based individual or any other person to tell you that you are married...it just pisses me off that telling someone on a piece of paper that you and another person are wed...i dunno it makes the exprience seem cheap and lessens the value of it to me.
In conclusion i think all rewards that are granted to legally married couples be shared with all individuals within a long term relationship regardless of any other criteria, to live in a free society you can't chose one person's views as all right and another person's views to be all wrong.

 

[decem]

another note/question.. i'm pretty sure you're addressing the fact that a couple in a long-term relationship should receive same breaks/assistance as a married couple.. right? so.. how much should a single parent, in no type of relationship recieve then? the same amount as two people?

hasn't our government already covered what you guys are discussing here.. i.e. tax breaks - a married couple receives tax breaks.. even more if have a kid.. two unwed parents receive tax breaks.. dependent on how much custody they have of the child.. right? poor, married couples receive govt assistance.. even more if have a kid.. poor, single parent receives govt assistance.. but the other parent who does not have custody does not.. or if they do.. they receive very little.. and why should they... the child isn't a burden on them at all...

so what i'm getting at.. is that the law has already accounted for married, unmarried, single parents.. and gives the appropriate amount of breaks/assistance dependent on the amount of custody each parent has of the child.. right??

 

[musclebrains]

Hmmm That's interesting.. Now you are treading in some very dangerous territory.. Suppose that we appealed to whim of every group who did not follow the domininant culture's values?

Comon, child abuse isn't so bad... why should I be punished for hitting my kid with a belt... Lets descriminalized child abuse..

That mother took my crack, he deserved to pumped full of lead..
Lets repeal murder laws... because that guy deserved it IMO.

Man, that girl wanted sex, you should have seen the dress she was wearing... Lets relax rape laws...


You cant always give people what they want... People sometimes want things that are BAD for them.. go figure.

Thats why we have laws, and further thats why we have legislation that supports those laws...

Hey, if you dont like the group you hang out with,leave.. Im sure the europeans would love to have you.

I hardly think conferring the tax advantages of the married on the unmarried -- giving the unmarried equal status under the law -- is analogous to the legalization of rape.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

I hardly think conferring the tax advantages of the married on the unmarried -- giving the unmarried equal status under the law -- is analogous to the legalization of rape.

Not yet anyways....

 

[Prometheus]

There is some confusion here.. There is a difference in marriage of the law, and marriage of gods blessing. Don't confuse the two.

good point.

some of the posts here have exaggerated the difficulties involved - it is easier to get married than it is to get a driver's license. divorce is somewhat more involved, as it should be any time people who have jointly created something have to divide it, although the process is certainly abused by greedy lawyers and by the judicial system.

 

[curling]

My opinion is "no" marriage is not an outdated institution. I think sticking by your vows is becoming an outdated institution. In otherwords going back on your word. Look at the Clintons they are a prime example. Marriage is a wonderful thing if you live by your word that you give before God and man.

Think about you have two people totally committed to each other for life. So when you get sick your mate doesn't split because they promised they wouldn't. But what would stop a live in girl/boy friend from splitting nada. So with marriage you have someone to look out for you your whole life and you have someone to grow old with and someone to share your hopes and dreams as well as you downs and problems.

 

[musclebrains]

imusclebrains.. great posts man.. but you did step around my question.. i'm somewhat ignorant to the laws.. but from what i've seen and understand.. a single parent gets the same if not more govt assistance... whether through tax breaks or programs (wic..etc).. you have a legal background.. could you please shed light on this.. are married parents getting that much more assistance or breaks? why should an unwed, single parent receive MORE assistance?

more of my vies.. gay companions should absolutely be entitled to inheritance.. should be allowed to marry.. should be allowed to adopt.. and covenant marriages suck..

I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea what benefits single parents receive from the state.

I certainly know that married people receive all manner of benefits that single people do not -- from the state and in the private sector. These are not necessarily linked to childrearing. A few of the entitlements that come to mind off the top of my head, some of which were outlined in a Hawaii case someone with more time can look up:

Federal tax advantages

Immigration and naturalization advantages

Rent control benefits in some cities

Discounts on joint applications for services, including insurance and membership

Division of community property

Rights of inheritance

Child custody

Spousal privilege and confidentiality in all kinds of legal actions

The right to enter premarital agreements (much more difficult for nonmarried people to form contracts)

The right to spousal support

The right to bring a wrongful death action.


Although I agree people should have the right to marry, I do not believe it should confer these SPECIAL rights. And, if I had to take a position in a debate, I'd argue for its abolition since it seems to me to be, bizarrely, a fundamentally private relationship with private understandings but nonetheless under the contractual regulation of teh state and other third parties.

And, by the way, I have been married.

 

[polarpixie]

My opinion is "no" marriage is not an outdated institution. I think sticking by your vows is becoming an outdated institution. In otherwords going back on your word. Look at the Clintons they are a prime example. Marriage is a wonderful thing if you live by your word that you give before God and man.

Think about you have two people totally committed to each other for life. So when you get sick your mate doesn't split because they promised they wouldn't. But what would stop a live in girl/boy friend from splitting nada. So with marriage you have someone to look out for you your whole life and you have someone to grow old with and someone to share your hopes and dreams as well as you downs and problems.

I agree. People seem to place very little importance on their "word" these days. When I make a promise, I keep it, my word means something to the people I give my word to, my word means something to myself. If you don't think you can keep your word to someone when you tell them that you will stick by them til death, then don't get married in the first place!!! Or at least please don't have kids together.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

I agree. People seem to place very little importance on their "word" these days. When I make a promise, I keep it, my word means something to the people I give my word to, my word means something to myself. If you don't think you can keep your word to someone when you tell them that you will stick by them til death, then don't get married in the first place!!! Or at least please don't have kids together.

Couldn't have said it better myself pixie...

 

[decem]

I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea what benefits single parents receive from the state.

I certainly know that married people receive all manner of benefits that single people do not -- from the state and in the private sector. These are not necessarily linked to childrearing. A few of the entitlements that come to mind off the top of my head, some of which were outlined in a Hawaii case someone with more time can look up:

Federal tax advantages
Immigration and naturalization advantages
Rent control benefits in some cities
Discounts on joint applications for services, including insurance and membership
Division of community property
Rights of inheritance
Child custody
Spousal privilege and confidentiality in all kinds of legal actions
The right to enter premarital agreements (much more difficult for nonmarried people to form contracts)
The right to spousal support
The right to bring a wrongful death action.

Although I agree people should have the right to marry, I do not believe it should confer these SPECIAL rights. And, if I had to take a position in a debate, I'd argue for its abolition since it seems to me to be, bizarrely, a fundamentally private relationship with private understandings but nonetheless under the contractual regulation of teh state and other third parties.

And, by the way, I have been married.

i covered my thoughts on the taxes already..

immigration and naturalization advantages: i'm not sure what all this entails.. but if it's mainly the fact that someone can marry an immigrant and make them a citizen.. then i'm all for it.. after all.. at least it's putting the one party at some risk.. and making the decision a little harder for them.. whereas if you were to grant this right to singles.. say some guy dates a girl and wants her to be legal and he can just vouch for her. then he's risking nothing... and then everybody and their neighbor would be legal here simply because they'd get some schmuck or personal acquaintence to vouch for them..

discounts on joint apps: two people are more likely to pay the bills then one.. two are responsible.. they have two people to look for if it's delinquent.. it's bringing twice the business to them in the long run.. i'm for it..

rights of inheritance: i'm against.. you're right... this is wrong
custody: depends on what are being called "advantages"..

premarital agreements: um.. they're not getting married.. j/k.. but is this in reference to gays... or no? i can't help but think that it'd be too awful hard to form a legally binding contract between two long-term relationship partners.. same sex or not..

spousal support: as in how? like child support? cuz my cousin has a kid and never been married and he pays child support..

the others i mentioned i really know absolutely nothign about...




i absolutely agree that the state should not be involved in a private relationship... but the fact is.. when it comes down to property.. it has too. doesn't it? how could one even join in with someone.. share everything.. make each others money, property, etc as one.. then part ways and expect to not have problems getting a fair deal? besides of course a legal binding contract regulated by the state.. i.e. marriage

 

[mrbill]

Though I still personally believe in the institution of marriage, I have to say that I am not anit-NOT marriage (Did that make any sense?).

no

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

I agree with you Decem... I dont care what you call it, marriage, cohabitating etc.. its the same thing in the eyes of the law, call it anything you want. Its a legal partnership. If you are in a legal partnership you can enjoy the rights applicable to those that are. If you're not.. Oh well... There are reasons for the hoops you have to jump through to get those rights.. One major one is to curb the massive abuse that would entail if anyone could decide at the flip of the coin they were a partnership, then when it stopped being "cool", they could flick a switch and it all be over... Sorry charlie.. it doesnt work that way.

 

[Aryan_Soldat]

Great lie #3 of Gramscian Bolshevism: Marriage is "miisogynistic, evil, oppressive"

Great lie #4 of Gramscian Bolshevism: Extermination of an entire race of peole, through murder of the unborn, is "granting women control of their own bodies"

Fact:
In 1990, fully 2/3 of State and Federal prison inmates were raised in broken homes.

Fact:
When the "misogynistic" institution of marriage remained intact, women's sexuality was respected, and women were exalted for their ability to produce children. After the American Bolshevik Revolution, circa 1965, women were redefined as "units of production". Marxist social elites proposed that motherhood and marriage were tantamount to slavery, and true freedom for women entailed forcing them into the workplace, encouraging them to allow men to use them sexually, and promoting the murder of their children.

Fact:
40,000,000 White children have been exterminated since 1973. Whites will no longer exist in the 22nd century. As much as this bring joy to white liberals, they fail to recognize that their Arab and Asian masters will show them no mercy when they become a 20 to 1 minority.

Fact:
Prior to 1965, when the American family remained intact, drug addiction was uncommon among all populations. Murder was rare enough to warrant national headlines. Families could enjoy a high quality of life on a single income. Violence shocked the conscience of Americans, as it was an odd and terrible occurance. It was considered unacceptable to sexualize women, and view them as vehicles for physical gratification. People who harbored the aforementioned worldview were ostracized.

The Sheeple who have been so successfully brainwashed by the Bolshevik elite will be the first to go. I will laugh when your daughters are prostituted and your sons imprisones. I will laugh when you are victimized by the system that you have created. I will laugh when you communities are overrun by black and bronze masses, who will brutalize you as you preach the gospel of multiculturalism. I will laugh as you look to White people who have not forgotten their warrior heritage to save you as you are destroyed.
The Aryan Soldat
"My Loyalty is my Honor"

 

[mekannik]

...and thank you for chiming in with those fabulous remarks.



[whisper] psycho [/whisper]


By your numbers - that's 1,333,333 abortions/year... 3,652/day (not counting weekends, holidays, paid vacations, clinic bombings).

You sure you want to stand by your fact(s)?

 

[Aryan_Soldat]

I stand by "my" numbers because they are not my numbers. They are the United Nations' numbers, tallied over the period in question. If you want to, do the research. I don't see why the demographers that produced the study would lie.

It is common for neo-Marxists to call their opposition "psychos". A fundamental tenet of Cultural Bolshevism is a strategy known as Critical Theory. Critical Theory, as outlined by MArcuse, encourages radicals to discredit their opposition by branding them as "insane". In the USSR, political dissidents were subjected to "psychological evaluations" and subsequently deemed "insane".

What it comes down to is that you people are losing. You have tied your own noose, and you will be destroyed. You have become so weak, that you wring your hands over the treatment of your enemies. You have become so weak, that you are terrified of death. You have become so weak, that you think you can buy your way out of any situation. Well, Mohammed can't be bought. At least when he comes for me, he will respect me as a warrior. To him, you are lower than shit. You aren't an enemy, you are a worthless coward.

Its interesting that people like those on this board champion the cause of murdering children, and then present themselves as paragons of moral virtue because they are tolerant of perverted sexual activites and hate their own race and culture. You are all sick little weaklings. Enjoy the dying days of your sick culture.
The Aryan Soldat

 

[musclebrains]

immigration and naturalization advantages: i'm not sure what all this entails.. but if it's mainly the fact that someone can marry an immigrant and make them a citizen.. then i'm all for it.. after all.. at least it's putting the one party at some risk.. and making the decision a little harder for them.. whereas if you were to grant this right to singles.. say some guy dates a girl and wants her to be legal and he can just vouch for her. then he's risking nothing... and then everybody and their neighbor would be legal here simply because they'd get some schmuck or personal acquaintence to vouch for them..

discounts on joint apps: two people are more likely to pay the bills then one.. two are responsible.. they have two people to look for if it's delinquent.. it's bringing twice the business to them in the long run.. i'm for it..

rights of inheritance: i'm against.. you're right... this is wrong
custody: depends on what are being called "advantages"..

premarital agreements: um.. they're not getting married.. j/k.. but is this in reference to gays... or no? i can't help but think that it'd be too awful hard to form a legally binding contract between two long-term relationship partners.. same sex or not..

spousal support: as in how? like child support? cuz my cousin has a kid and never been married and he pays child support..

the others i mentioned i really know absolutely nothign about...

i absolutely agree that the state should not be involved in a private relationship... but the fact is.. when it comes down to property.. it has too. doesn't it? how could one even join in with someone.. share everything.. make each others money, property, etc as one.. then part ways and expect to not have problems getting a fair deal? besides of course a legal binding contract regulated by the state.. i.e. marriage

I am simply demonstrating that all kinds of entitlements are granted the married that are not extended to the unmarried.

If you think these entitlements are fair, fine. I don't. I can't see using a private relationship to regulate immigration. I can't see why married people should receive discounted memberships just because it's good for business, when two umarried people could just as easily sign a joint contract.

I do not think people should have to marry and become subject to, say antiquated adultery laws, in order to guarantee reasonable rights of inheritance. That there isn't much alternative now is true. That's why I say I favor people's right to marry but, from a conceptual point of view, I disfavor the institution and believe the laws need to be rewritten to accord the unmarried the same status as the married.

 

[musclebrains]

I stand by "my" numbers because they are not my numbers. They are the United Nations' numbers, tallied over the period in question. If you want to, do the research. I don't see why the demographers that produced the study would lie.

It is common for neo-Marxists to call their opposition "psychos". A fundamental tenet of Cultural Bolshevism is a strategy known as Critical Theory. Critical Theory, as outlined by MArcuse, encourages radicals to discredit their opposition by branding them as "insane". In the USSR, political dissidents were subjected to "psychological evaluations" and subsequently deemed "insane".

What it comes down to is that you people are losing. You have tied your own noose, and you will be destroyed. You have become so weak, that you wring your hands over the treatment of your enemies. You have become so weak, that you are terrified of death. You have become so weak, that you think you can buy your way out of any situation. Well, Mohammed can't be bought. At least when he comes for me, he will respect me as a warrior. To him, you are lower than shit. You aren't an enemy, you are a worthless coward.

Its interesting that people like those on this board champion the cause of murdering children, and then present themselves as paragons of moral virtue because they are tolerant of perverted sexual activites and hate their own race and culture. You are all sick little weaklings. Enjoy the dying days of your sick culture.
The Aryan Soldat

Um, are you for real? Where are you getting this stuff?

I assume you are aware, considering your screen name, of the origins of the phrase "cultural bolshevism." To use that term while making a critique of abortion, is almost mind-boggling. I presume in your world that baking Jews in the ovens of Auschwitz as a deterent to the "cultural bolshevism" of the Weimars is acceptable whereas the termination of a pregnancy is murder, yes? ("Cultural bolshevism" was the phrase Hitler's folks used to discredit the culture of Weimar Berlin, particularly that of Jewish intellectuals like Marcuse, Brecht, etc.)

I have never encountered anything where Marcuse advocated the branding of disputants as insane. In fact, he was the FIRST person on the left, long ago, to criticize the Soviet system for its corrupt revisioning of Marxism. And his critique of Freud's pessmistic view cause HIM to be branded crazy and nihilistic by Erich Fromm, his former associate.

Marcuse's Critical Theory of Society, hatched at the Inst. for Social Research, was both a critique and synthesis of Marxism and Freud's theories about eros and repression. Unlike Freud, Marcuse thought there was a natural drive toward happiness in the human. Unlike orthodox Marxists, he did not believe capitalism inevitably gave way to socialism. As a result, he basically theorized the movement that came to be called the New Left.

 

[furious]

I stand by "my" numbers because they are not my numbers. They are the United Nations' numbers, tallied over the period in question. If you want to, do the research. I don't see why the demographers that produced the study would lie.

It is common for neo-Marxists to call their opposition "psychos". A fundamental tenet of Cultural Bolshevism is a strategy known as Critical Theory. Critical Theory, as outlined by MArcuse, encourages radicals to discredit their opposition by branding them as "insane". In the USSR, political dissidents were subjected to "psychological evaluations" and subsequently deemed "insane".

What it comes down to is that you people are losing. You have tied your own noose, and you will be destroyed. You have become so weak, that you wring your hands over the treatment of your enemies. You have become so weak, that you are terrified of death. You have become so weak, that you think you can buy your way out of any situation. Well, Mohammed can't be bought. At least when he comes for me, he will respect me as a warrior. To him, you are lower than shit. You aren't an enemy, you are a worthless coward.

Its interesting that people like those on this board champion the cause of murdering children, and then present themselves as paragons of moral virtue because they are tolerant of perverted sexual activites and hate their own race and culture. You are all sick little weaklings. Enjoy the dying days of your sick culture.
The Aryan Soldat

Do I detect some mild hostility? It seems to me if you only align yourself to one ethnic group, you are effectively divided and easily conquered.

~ Back to the OP: I think marriage is an archaic ritual that HAD strong religious implications many moons ago. Now that there is ( suppossedly ) a separation of church and State, and so many financial and benefits statuses that change with marriage status ( insurance rates, health care, tax breaks, etc ) the law HAS to step in and regulate what is or is not a marriage.
~If your marriage fails in religion, it's because of spiritual matters that are recognized as intangible.
~If your marriage fails in law, it is because someone is at fault, the intangible cannot be recognized by lawyers, judges, etc. A firm resolution must be present.
~There should be other legal options that are available to single people to be able to attain the benefits listed in previous posts.
~I personally hate hearing how my insurance rates are higher because I am single. I can't count the number of times I have dodged Moms driving an SUV who were yelling at her kids, yet i'm the one who has the higher premiums..hhmmm.
~Never try to debate stoned

 

[RyanH]

You know, I also believe all of us have neglected to speak of the workplace penalties many Americans often encounter simply because they might do not have the typical family (i.e. a family with children).

For instance, employees without children are often asked to work later than their colleagues with children. Those same employees without children are also sometimes asked to work on holidays whereas their colleagues with children are often not. Also, workers with children often receive beneficial treatment in the number of sick/personal leave days they are granted....

Even federal law recognizes "family leave" (as passed by President Clinton which I am, in fact, a proponent of to the extent that employees without children would be granted the same number of days---which unfortunately they are not).

Thus, just additional instances of the individual receiving uneqal treatment all in favor of promoting the traditional "family."

 

[RyanH]

.

 

[Aryan_Soldat]

In typical fashion, you people have completely avoided the issues that I have raised.

First:
I didn't mention Jews. Baking them or otherwise. "Cultural Bolshevism" as opposed to Economic Bolshevism, refers to the ideology promulgated by the Frankfurt School of Social Research. It is not "hitler's term".

Second:
You cannot justify the destruction of 40,000,000 lives by throwing out catchphrase propaganda like "a woman has the right to conrol her own body".

Third:
I don't think you people were listening. YOU are an endangered species. In one hundred years, YOUR DNA will not exist.

as a consequence,
YOUR cultural institutions will not endure.

What you people propose is a Darwinian dead end. Feminism = 0 population growth. Homosexuality = 0 Population growth. The destruction of the family = violent crime = social chaos.

Do the math. America went from being the most secure nation on Earth, with the most affluent working class in the world to becoming a third world toilet ruled by degenerate Marxist elites.

Also:
Marcuse promulgated "Critical Theory". Look it up you Red piece of shit.
The Aryan Soldat
"Any day that Reds die is a good day".

 

[musclebrains]

I think YOU better do some research -- and somewhere besides freerepublic.com, Mr. AryanDoesn'tMentionJews. And you might start by reading the posts to which you respond.

 

[Prometheus]

For instance, employees without children are often asked to work later than their colleagues with children. Those same employees without children are also sometimes asked to work on holidays whereas their colleagues with children are often not. Also, workers with children often receive beneficial treatment in the number of sick/personal leave days they are granted....

so you went from being anti-marriage to being anti-child rearing?

even though they've worked tirelessly to undermine anything perceived as "family values," I haven't heard the left going so far as to promote complete childlessness, and as far as I know, even the Soviets encouraged child-rearing -- are you sure you didn't deviate from the official propaganda line on this one?

 

[RyanH]

so you went from being anti-marriage to being anti-child rearing?

even though they've worked tirelessly to undermine anything perceived as "family values," I haven't heard the left going so far as to promote complete childlessness, and as far as I know, even the Soviets encouraged child-rearing -- are you sure you didn't deviate from the official propaganda line on this one?

Your attempt to put words into my mouth just-----FAILED.

To reiterate what I said in my prior post: employees without children are very often treated less favorably that employees with children. There is a disparity in the advantages an employer often confers on employees with immediate families as opposed to employees without a traditional, immediate family.

Your reading skills need improvement.

 

[Prometheus]

thank you for the compliment.

I deduced that you feel "favorable treatment" accorded to people to allow them to spend more time raising kids is a bad thing (albeit this deduction is based on sub-ryanh reading skills). or am I wrong, and you were saying the treatment a good thing?

please shed a bit of your vast wisdom on us - what would you do to solve this monumental pro-family injustice being foisted on the unwashed masses?

 

[decem]

What you people propose is a Darwinian dead end. Feminism = 0 population growth. Homosexuality = 0 Population growth.

that's perfectly alright with me..

 

[RyanH]

thank you for the compliment.

I deduced that you feel "favorable treatment" accorded to people to allow them to spend more time raising kids is a bad thing (albeit this deduction is based on sub-ryanh reading skills). or am I wrong, and you were saying the treatment a good thing?

please shed a bit of your vast wisdom on us - what would you do to solve this monumental pro-family injustice being foisted on the unwashed masses?

It's really very simple: non-married, childless employees should receive the same benefits that married employees with children receive. Those who choose a different route in life should not be penalized for their choices.

Why should employee X have to work 2 hours later than employee Y simply because employee Y needs to go to a baseball game with her child? Employee Y made a decision when she chose to have children, just as employee X made a decision when she chose not to have children. Their choices should not induce a disparity in treatment.

Of course I empathize with working parents and they should receive time-off if needed to spend time with their children, since doing so promotes the welfare of our nation's children. However, working employees without children should receive the same amount of time, if he or she so desires.

Ryan.

 

[manny78]

It's really very simple: non-married, childless employees should receive the same benefits that married employees with children receive. Those who choose a different route in life should not be penalized for their choices.

Why should employee X have to work 2 hours later than employee Y simply because employee Y needs to go to a baseball game with her child? Employee Y made a decision when she chose to have children, just as employee X made a decision when she chose not to have children. Their choices should not induce a disparity in treatment.

Of course I am empathize with working parents and they should receive time-off if needed to spend time with their children, since doing so promotes the welfare of our nation's children. However, working employees without children should receive the same amount of time, if he or she so desires.

Ryan.

Agree. To each his own and the decision to have children or not is a very personal choice. So our governemt should respect everyone's decison.

 

[-SD-]

I would never marry either a man or a woman since I simply do not see the point. However, both gay and straight couples ought to receive the equal treatment if they do, in fact, choose the institution of marriage. Thus, I am a proponent of same-sex marriages.

If marriage is becoming outdated then what's the point of promoting same sex marriages?

 

[huntmaster]

I would like to put my name in the hat here--

I am favorable towards marriage. What kind of society will we have when no one is accountable to anyone?? When there is no commitment?? Marriage is all about commitment and has positive effects on society and the development of children.

Once again, back when people were not so swayed by the political correct bs of today, this question would be scoffed at. Some here will say that is b/c we are now enlightened---that is a copout. anyone can throw around a word like enlightenment and exchange it for the right to attempt to try to abolish the backbone of the American Family---Marriage.

C'mon folks, what yall thinkin'

 

[HumorMe]

This whole thread is so sad!

So, this is what our society has been reduced too!?! I am so thankful I grew up in the 60's - 70's.

Where have all of our values gone as a nation? Values we once treasured and held sacred. Today's society is the biggest clusterfuck to ever habitate this world. My values and morals are so traditional that others look at them with disbelief. That's just the way I was taught and raised. Call me a square or whatever else you want.

I truly feel sorry for the majority of the younger people today. They have been brainwashed to the point that they cannot think for themselves. They have let society do their thinking for them. Marriages are too simple to get out of now although I feel divorce is needed in some cases. My wife is a school teacher and when she calls student's homes, she has no idea who to ask for because probably two thirds of the students do not share the same last name as their parents. She just usually asks for the student's guardian.
The majority of the young people today have no direction because they have never been taught to have a direction or a purpose.

What a pathetic world we live in!

 

[Aryan_Soldat]

Decem:
Zero population growth might be "fine with you" but there is something that you should consider. Peoples of European descent are literally dying. By 2050, one in three white Americans and Europeans will be over 65 years of age. One in 10 will be over 80 years of age. Who is going to care for these people when they refuse to bear children? What is your solution? Exorbitant taxation? Mass euthenasia of the elderly? Please tell us.

Musclebrains:
I take pride in being Aryan. Racists like you hate Euro-Americans, you hate yorself, you hate your culture. That is fine, but don't denigrate MY heritage. Just because you are rootless and sheeplike does not give you the right to denigrate people who take pride in their culture.

Decem and MuscleBrains:
There is this guy named Muhammed. He gets off on watching you die. He hates you, he hates your culture, he hates what you have done to his land. From the time he could walk, and wield an AK, he has dreamed of spilling your blood. While you whine and complain about social injustice with your "cocktail party" buddies, he is planning the best way to undermine your nations' security apparatus and ultimately destroy you. Did I mention that Muhammed has well over a billion friends and family? When you are old and grey, and live in a country where there are no young people to sustain the economy, Muhammed and his friends will outnumber you by a ratio of 20 to 1. He is not going to show up to your cocktail parties and talk about Women's lib, gay rights, or the misogynistic nature of the American family. He is going to tell you to accept his God, or you will taste his steel. Think about that next time you trash your culture and celebrate the extermination of your people.

RyanH;
Okay Ryan, I am going to phrase this in simple terms that you understand. Families = strong cultural foundation. Strong cultural foundation = order + productivity. Not to mention that family = population. Population = Western world will not cease to exist. The survuval of Western Civilization is slightly more important than you and your faggot friends recieving employee benefits and tax breaks for acting like hedonistic degenerates. Will you please kill yourself, Ryan H, and save Muhammed the time and effort. You are truly an embarrassment to our people and culture. You are whiny, flighty, effeminate, and weak.

The Aryan Soldat
"Fight the war"

 

[decem]

Decem and Humor Me:
There is this guy named Muhammed. He gets off on watching you die. He hates you, he hates your culture, he hates what you have done to his land. From the time he could walk, and wield an AK, he has dreamed of spilling your blood. While you whine and complain about social injustice with your "cocktail party" buddies, he is planning the best way to undermine your nations' security apparatus and ultimately destroy you. Did I mention that Muhammed has well over a billion friends and family? When you are old and grey, and live in a country where there are no young people to sustain the economy, Muhammed and his friends will outnumber you by a ratio of 20 to 1. He is not going to show up to your cocktail parties and talk about Women's lib, gay rights, or the misogynistic nature of the American family. He is going to tell you to accept his God, or you will taste his steel. Think about that next time you trash your culture and celebrate the extermination of your people.

The Aryan Soldat
"Fight the war"

muhammed fucks goats..

 

[HumorMe]

Humor Me:
I take pride in being Aryan. Racists like you hate Euro-Americans, you hate yorself, you hate your culture. That is fine, but don't denigrate MY heritage. Just because you are rootless and sheeplike does not give you the right to denigrate people who take pride in their culture.

Decem and Humor Me:
There is this guy named Muhammed. He gets off on watching you die. He hates you, he hates your culture, he hates what you have done to his land. From the time he could walk, and wield an AK, he has dreamed of spilling your blood. While you whine and complain about social injustice with your "cocktail party" buddies, he is planning the best way to undermine your nations' security apparatus and ultimately destroy you. Did I mention that Muhammed has well over a billion friends and family? When you are old and grey, and live in a country where there are no young people to sustain the economy, Muhammed and his friends will outnumber you by a ratio of 20 to 1. He is not going to show up to your cocktail parties and talk about Women's lib, gay rights, or the misogynistic nature of the American family. He is going to tell you to accept his God, or you will taste his steel. Think about that next time you trash your culture and celebrate the extermination of your people.



The Aryan Soldat
"Fight the war"

Just where in the fuck do you read in my post I am a racist? Dude, you have more issues than the New York Times!

I will accept no other God but the one I worship now. If it means tasting Muhammed's steel then that will happen. I am not trashing my culture, I am giving some of the young people of today's world some insight as to what life used to be like. Aryan Soldat........young, dumb and ignorant is no way to go through life.....you need to get the chip off your shoulder and respect other's beliefs.

 

[Aryan_Soldat]

I misspoke HumorMe.
I meant to adress "Musclebrains"
Please forgive the mistake

The Aryan SOldat

PS: You are right

 

[decem]

I misspoke HumorMe.
I meant to adress "Musclebrains"
Please forgive the mistake

The Aryan SOldat

PS: You are right

oooohh.. well that makes it all better then...

LMAO!!

 

[HumorMe]

Please forgive the mistake

The Aryan SOldat

Apology accepted.

 

[aurelius]

Where have all of our values gone as a nation? Values we once treasured and held sacred. Today's society is the biggest clusterfuck to ever habitate this world. My values and morals are so traditional that others look at them with disbelief. That's just the way I was taught and raised. Call me a square or whatever else you want.

What VALUES are those?

 

[HumorMe]

What VALUES are those?

I don't have the time to get into this with you. All you are going to do is pick apart my beliefs and convictions. I won't waste your time and you won't waste my time. I know your tactics all too well. If you don't know what kind of a person I am from reading my other posts, you are not going to understand anything I say. Besides, we believe in different things...so be it!

 

[aurelius]

I don't have the time to get into this with you. All you are going to do is pick apart my beliefs and convictions. I won't waste your time and you won't waste my time. I know your tactics all too well. If you don't know what kind of a person I am from reading my other posts, you are not going to understand anything I say. Besides, we believe in different things...so be it!

What are you afraid of? Friend, where are you going? How else am I to learn about the loss of values in society and set myself on the correct path?

 

[HumorMe]

What are you afraid of? Friend, where are you going? How else am I to learn about the loss of values in society and set myself on the correct path?

Not afraid in the least. We are just different from each other. I have already experienced this with you. Our views are opposites and in this case opposites do not attract. I have more important things to do like manage my stock portfolio and mutal funds online so I am back and forth on these boards all day. You see, I am actually semi-retired at 40 and this gives me something to do with my time(stocks, that is) that and taking care of my kids. Kind of like a Mr. Mom so to speak. Although I still work about two to three hours a day, it's mostly just checking in and up on things at the office. I really don't know your age and considering that, I will let you find you way through life without my help. I have found my way and still finding my way although things are alot easier than they used to be and my paths are alot clearer than they used to be.

Let me leave you with is. I have been married for 15 years. I have been with my wife for 21 years. In all of this time, religion has been the most inportant factor in our lives. I'm not a Bible thumper but I am a firm believer in God. He has led me and helped me along the pathway of life. I feel, He is responsible for everything I have been given....My belief in God, my wife, my kids, my house, my business, etc.........wealth being the least. Wealth is not important to me but it allows me to do things that I would have never done before. Wealth is not everything it is cracked up to be but it can be nice at times. I know I sound materialistic but really I am not. I am trying to give my family the best that I can give them. My wife came from a family that wasn't exactly generous with their money. She grew up hard after her mother died young and had a father that wasn't real friendly. So you'll know where I am coming from.....I'm not boasting but just letting you know where I stand on subjects of values. Our society is just messed up with greed and no conscious at all.

You choose your own values and morals the way you see fit. I don't have a problem with that. Don't try to pick apart what I am saying here because I am not trying to come off as flippant. Everybody has their own thought process. I respect what you are trying to drive at but it doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with you. I know what has worked for me and I will not vary from it.

 

[aurelius]

I know what has worked for me and I will not vary from it.

Wish I could retreat to such a simple word world of dichotomy, right and wrong, good and evil. I told havoc once what Emerson reminded us of a long time ago. Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You see, I´m not trying to piss you off, HM. I once thought like you, vaguely indignant about values, politics, this and that. Did you ever stop to think what exactly it is that has you so upset? What exactly you mean when you say "values?" That´s all.

QUOTE]I respect what you are trying to drive at but it doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with you.[/QUOTE] I agree. Doesn´t mean we can´t chat and perhaps arrive more enlightned for having spoken.


Retired at 40. You devil. What was your secret?

 

[HumorMe]

Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You see, I´m not trying to piss you off, HM. I once thought like you, vaguely indignant about values, politics, this and that. Did you ever stop to think what exactly it is that has you so upset? What exactly you mean when you say "values?" That´s all.

Retired at 40. You devil. What was your secret?

Consistency has worked for me and usually stick with things that bring me success and satisfaction so I guess I must have a little mind.

I'm upset with how the American people have and are being psychologically conditioned to accept things that once were taboo and we are made to believe that it is okay. One example(and I don't want to turn this thread into something totally off the original topic) is the horrific event that happened in Texas concerning Andrea Yates and her murdering her five kids. Everybody trying to figure out if she meant to do it or was it post-partum depression, blah,blah,blah. It's obvious she has mental problems but it doesn't lessen what she has done. I know that is a poor example but let me find another example.

Have you ever paid attention to the frivolous lawsuits that being pushed through the court systems these days? Most of them have no merit whatsoever but judges and jurys are awarding outlandish settlements to these people for their own personal stupidity. That is an example of morals and values running amuck.

We no longer allow religion in schools. We no longer allow to let the best person for the job have it. We must meet certain quotas laid down by our government. I'm having a hard time coming up with specific examples but I think you get my drift. I'm not saying these things, if let back into society, are going to make a difference but it just seems society started falling apart after a lot of things were removed from it. That's my opinion only. We can't seem to do anything these days without fear of hurting people's feelings and step on their toes. Kids are not being taught how to accept failure in the classroom and outside of the classroom. Trust me on this one because I know firsthand about this because my wife is a schoolteacher. Some of the things she tells me they are required to do by law are just sickening because there are no merits to them.

About the retirement thing. I have been in business for 22 years and about 11 years ago I helped (financially and hands on) a friend of mine go into business for himself for a 49% stake in his company. I took the yearly profit sharings and put them into a mutual fund and when the Dot.com thing was going strong, I happened to receive a good stock tip and cashed the mutual out and bought a substantial block of shares in one of those companies. It turned out to be a windfall to say the least. I cahsed out before things headed south. Then about two years ago, the guy sold his business for an even larger amount. I got three lucky breaks.

 

[aurelius]

Consistency has worked for me and usually stick with things that bring me success and satisfaction so I guess I must have a little mind.

that´s not what I meant. Perhaps I failed to communicate myself. Sticking with something just because it´s what you have always done is what I meant.

 

[aurelius]

I'm upset with how the American people have and are being psychologically conditioned to accept things that once were taboo and we are made to believe that it is okay.

Just because something was taboo in the past doesn´t necessarily mean that it should stay that way forever. Women working is one obvious example.

We no longer allow to let the best person for the job have it.

You assume that in the past the best person always got the job.

I hear you abou the quotas and school standards. Both of my parents are college professors and they have a few stories about how things have changed on campus over the past several years, for the worse.

Seeing that you´re semi retired, maybe you could find time to investigate American societal trends in the past 100 years or so. It sounds to me you have more than a passing interest.

 

[HumorMe]

Just because something was taboo in the past doesn´t necessarily mean that it should stay that way forever. Women working is one obvious example.

You assume that in the past the best person always got the job.


maybe you could find time to investigate American societal trends in the past 100 years or so. It sounds to me you have more than a passing interest.

I'm having a hard time expressing my dissatisfactions concerning morals and values. Let me just list a few (in no particular order) and see how they have changed.

Sportsmanship(in particular...football but really most sports)(all levels) - During the game, you do your job without all the individual celebrations (taunting) and after the game, you go and shake the hands of your opponent. To me, that is how you play the game. Today's players are all about "me" and how can I intentionally hurt (physically) their opponent. There are exceptions to this but not many if only a handful.

Business - A handshake and/or your word used to be all it took to seal a deal or a contract. Now, it takes agreements, refining the agreements, hiring lawyers to review the agreements, blah, blah, blah....then finally signing the contract. I know all of the pitfalls that businesses have to deal with these days and they have to insure that they are getting what they are paying for and they have to consider shareholder's interests, etc., but it sure seems complicated to say the least. I can remember, not too long ago, dealing with business customers and meeting with them and come to an agreement without a signature and that was your bond. It will never happen again!

Marriage - (what this thread was all about in the first place) - is no longer (or at least declining rapidly) a holy matrimony taken place before God. It's now more of an agreement with prenuptials agreements that two people make that basically says we want to live together and if it doesn't work out, hey, we will move on without each other. Divorce has been around since marriage has been around but it (marriage) is too easy to get out of it now. Hire a lawyer, file the papers, and you are divorced, then pay the lawyer and then everyone is miserable with hate. Marriage is the biggest committment two people will ever make. When things head south, they bail on each other. It's really sad, IMO, and even sadder when kids are involved.

Work Ethics - What ever happened to the old saying, "In order to get ahead in life, you must work hard and pay your dues"? It fell by the wayside long ago. Everybody(not trying to group everybody together but in general) wants a paycheck but they don't want to work hard or work at all to receive one. Example(this just happened last weekend), I had two employees that had some responsibilites to do last weekend but they said they were broke and wanted to get paid after they finished the job that night. I told them I didn't do that sort of thing and they would be paid on payday. They did work that night and had other things to do the rest of the weekend but they never showed up again until Monday. Must not have been to broke!?! IMO, if you are going to work for somebody, try and do your best and always and I mean always be true to your word. You don't get far with me if you break your word. You'll be lucky to still have a job!

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more but I haven't the time to get into the rest. I hope this will in some way help you better understand where I am coming from. I will go out on a limb again and say that if you can't see where I am coming from and since you will not disclose your age(I'm still curious) I would say that you are much younger than me with different views and have not experienced these things I am talking about. Don't pick that statement apart, it's just an assumption on my part. If you are older than me then I know we are at extreme opposites of the spectrum on these topics.

I will say this again.....(this is not directed at you by any means)I am really simple and I am tolerant of other people's lifestyles and views as long as they are not thrusted down my throat and demand me to accept them as the so called gospel. What you do on your own time and in the privacy of your own home is fine by me and doesn't concern me but when they invade my space, use my time and affect my way of life then I become concerned and bothered and vocal.

 

[Prometheus]

HumorMe - I understand what you're saying. Generally, people tend to overemphasize the positives in history and neglect the negatives (i.e., there have always been criminals and thieves, but we prefer to remember the higher levels of courtesy and manners, etc.) -- but nonetheless, your examples are valid in my experience.

an objective example that a general decline has occurred was my grandmother telling me that she used to walk to work as a teenager 50 years ago - a young woman by herself, at night through a neighborhood that today I wouldn't go through during the day, even in a car while holding a shotgun. In those days the residents of that area left their doors unlocked - today its a different story. I also know a few schoolteachers in public schools -- all have stories of physical and verbal abuse, sexual harassment, threats and stabbings - and this is against the teachers!

anyway, these things (immorality, loss of work ethic and discipline, etc.) are symptoms - what is the disease?

 

[Prometheus]

to preempt a possible (valid) counterpoint by Aurelius' - I did ask her whether there were any neighborhoods at the time that could be compared to the modern one I referred to -- she said there was nothing comparable, and that it would've been unimaginable (24-hour drug sales, burned-out cars and houses, random gunshots, beatings of passers-by, etc.) - that's not an objective historical study, but just an opinion.

 

[HumorMe]

anyway, these things (immorality, loss of work ethic and discipline, etc.) are symptoms - what is the disease?

Sad to say but it is us(in a broad sense). We no longer spend time with our kids. We no longer use discipline as a learning tool. Sometimes use discipline in the wrong situations. We don't let kids use their imagination. How many times have you seen a kid with a new toy and they play with it for an hour or two or a day and then discard to the toy box and then complain to their parents, "there is nothing to do." I can't tell you how inventive we had to be growing up. Have you ever taken an ordinary spoon out the kitchen and gone outside and dug trenches and made little houses and put plastic toy soldiers around them and play a make believe "army or war"? Or dug those trenches and filled them up with water and make like a moat around your battlefield. This is imagination at it's purest form, IMO. I think I wound up losing my mother's entire spoon collection in the backyard. LOL!

Anyway, parents nowadays are more into giving the kid $10 or $20 to get them away from them and not bother them. They give allowances to their kids for no chores performed. Kids are not taught the value of a dollar and how hard it is to make a doolar. Granted, a dollar is not much these days but a lot of dollars is something! The other day, I let my oldest daughter (9 years old) go with me to check on some work things and it took about three hours and I told her if she helped me I would pay her, of course I didn't tell her how much I would pay her. I paid her $15.00 but she really worked hard for it. To make a long story short, she said....."Is that all?" I was shocked to say the least! I had a good talking and explaning session with her later that night! She understands now hopefully but sometimes they forget!

I would say, we are to blame for the disease. I will also add that all of the special interests groups are at fault too! A whole new thread could get all kinds of responses though! My opinion only.

 

[kd]

Historically, marriage became a publicly accepted, mainstream idea around the 1200's.

Hmmmm...lets see then,

Avg life span in the 1200's = 35
Lifestyle = uh...trying to eat and not be killed ?

Avg life span in 2000 = 72 (don't quote me on that number)
Lifestyle = anything, and everything

Is marriage an outdated institution?.....YES.............

 

[-SD-]

Historically, marriage became a publicly accepted, mainstream idea around the 1200's.

Hmmmm...lets see then,

Avg life span in the 1200's = 35
Lifestyle = uh...trying to eat and not be killed ?

Avg life span in 2000 = 72 (don't quote me on that number)
Lifestyle = anything, and everything

Is marriage an outdated institution?.....YES.............

Im failing to make the connection.

 

[Rex]

Re: Re: Re: Is MARRIAGE becoming an OUTDATED institution?

Many conservatives argue that the typical family will solve many of our society's ills, they have been proven wrong time and time again.

I'll agree with you on this Ryan. I'm from a "broken home" with divorced parents. I do not have a criminal record, I do not use illegal drugs. I know many kids who have both parents married, and are delinquents [sp?]. I don't think it matters if the parents are married. What matters is that the parents parent.

On the topic of marraige: I don't think it matters if people have a child[ren] out of wed lock [I think I used that in the right context]. Just as long as they fucking parent. I, personally, would like to be married one day. I don't force my views/lifestyle on anyone, and refuse to have it forced on me. If you want to get married, fine. If not, fine. But if you have children, then parent them.

 

[kd]

Im failing to make the connection.

From what little I have read:

The main reason marriage become popular starting in the 1200's
was that it helped promote population growth.

A big part of that was because of life expectancy.

Think about it. You were going to live to 35 if you hit avg, less if you weren't so lucky. Would'nt you want to "settle down" a little sooner and get serious?. Have some kids before you bit the dust? I suppose for some, roaming the land killing and raping worked for them, but others wanted to try something new called getting "married"

The circumstance, values, and lifestyle of people around the 1200's was very different vs today.

I'll use myself as an example. I'm in my mid 30's. I've been divorced 2 years. Marriage did not turn out to be a good thing for me. Getting divorced was the right thing to do in my case. I figure I have 20 good years left, then 15 or so before I'm tulip fertilizer.

If I lived in the 1200s I would be either on my death bed now, or already dead. If I was still alive, would I bother to end my marriage now at this age?...probably not.

It was a good idea back then to promote the population growth I suppose.

Today that is not a great concern. Most people think
"ME...MY LIFE"....or "I have lots of time to settle down...lol." or
"this marriage did'nt work, maybe I'll try another one and see what happens"

Not too much concern today about whether your race, religion or family will survive, which was important back then. (marriage would promote those things)

The concept was originally based on things that have not much value in todays world.

 

[-SD-]

Marriage for increasing the population doesnt make sense because a man can bang a lot of women and get them pregnant, which makes more children faster.

 

[kd]

Marriage for increasing the population doesnt make sense because a man can bang a lot of women and get them pregnant, which makes more children faster.

lol..

Well, I'm always interested in learning.

Please oh "SUPER ONE". Educate us poor souls here at EF.

Why did marriage become an publicly accepted idea way back then?

thanks

btw - if it was the 1200's and you tried to come into my villiage, and fuck my wife, sister, cousins or people, I"d either kill you or you'd have to kill me..lol...(probably because I would'nt like your race or religion, you'd have to do your own people).

 

[aurelius]

Divorce has been around since marriage has been around but it (marriage) is too easy to get out of it now.

Maybe marriage is too easy to get into. What do you think?

What ever happened to the old saying, "In order to get ahead in life, you must work hard and pay your dues"?

Maybe the old saying just fell into line with reality. In the past did everyone who "worked hard and paid their dues" get what they deserved? Maybe more than now, perhaps.

Did you ask me for my age? I probably missed it. 23.

An intriguing post. Many points of agreement. As is the case when that happens, quicker to mention the points of contention.

all the best

 

[The Dude]

By enacting more equitable laws for single parents and providing more government assistance, Americans too, would finally see that marriage is not always necessary for a healthy society and moreover, the individual can triumph as well, if given the same equal opportunities....

Ryan.

You could not be more wrong. Study after study conclude that successfully married people are happier than other segments of society. They also raise children with fewer behavioral problems in life. Look into it.

 

[-SD-]

lol..

Well, I'm always interested in learning.

Please oh "SUPER ONE". Educate us poor souls here at EF.

Why did marriage become an publicly accepted idea way back then?

thanks

btw - if it was the 1200's and you tried to come into my villiage, and fuck my wife, sister, cousins or people, I"d either kill you or you'd have to kill me..lol...(probably because I would'nt like your race or religion, you'd have to do your own people).

No need to be a smartass. I was referring to marriage not being effective for purely population growth reasons. Marriage became a publicly accepted idea because of religious reasons I would assume, since before that the Greeks and Romans fucked everything that moved.

 

[Zirakzigil]

so who gave me negative karma here and wouldn't even sign it?

 

[aurelius]

Marriage became a publicly accepted idea because of religious reasons I would assume, since before that the Greeks and Romans fucked everything that moved.

so?

 

[-SD-]

so?

So, if a man is monogamous to one woman his whole life, that isnt as effective for population growth as a man having sex with many women and "spreading his seed" so to speak. I was referring to kd's argument that marriage is effective for population growth. Im speaking strictly about the best model for population growth, not against the institution of marriage by the way.

 

[mattcanning99]

no.