Marry Me!

[Balerion]

So lets see. A man marries a woman, provides for her and her children which he had no way of confirming a his, for life, and this was an advantage for him. In some societies, he did this for several women and their children, and this was an even bigger advantage for him. Ever wonder why he needed to provide for any of them at all? Why does a man need to care for any children? What would be the advantage to a male of being restricted from impregnating as many women as possible? What would be the advantage to the man of looking after children simply by assuming responsibility for their well being, along with the well being of the woman? What would be a disadvantage of this system for a woman who had no options in controlling who impregnated her and how often?

So you're stuck on ancient marriage, and I'm talking about all marriage. I suppose it didn't make much of a difference for the girl in Albania who never had a say in who she banged anyway, you're right. But all the others...?

Why does a man need to care for a child? Because he wants to, maybe? Or are men unfeeling bastards, in your estimation? I'm assuming you're going to tell me next that men don't ever take care of their children, or only do so when in wedlock?

And what's with your anti-female stance? Is that the Muslim in you talking? Why is it automatically assumed that the woman is carrying someone other than the husband's child?

Exactly.

I know you want to pin all sins on the woman, since that is what you've been told to believe your entire life, but men are unfaithful as well.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

what the... So if a man wants to marry his wife's husband's goat, they shouldn't be allowed to?

 

[swarm]

Personally I could not care less who marries who.

 

[Asguard]

Mr. Hamtastic

stop mixing beastality in there, like pedophila the main issue with beastality is to do with concent which cant be established from an animal. Now if we met a simillary advanced race of aliens you could argue quite easerly rights to have relationship with said aliens becuse they would be capable of giving concent to the same standed as we are but animals cant any more than children can

Poligamy and homosexuality on the other hand DO involve concent and should therefor be legal, you are quite right there

 

[Michael]

Why are there restrictions on marriage? In the US there is a big debate about homosexual marriage. Why? Why isn't polygamy allowed? If a man wants to marry a goat, why can't he? If a woman wants to marry the Denver Broncos, why can't she?

Really they can if everyone agrees. We live in a society that has social constructs which maintain said society. It's not appropriate to jerk off in public. Maybe it doesn't harm anyone, but people would rather not see it. So, that's illegal.

So, in summary, we live in a society and that's where the laws come in.

I mean, one could argue, why is murder against the law? meh, if you were weak enough to let yourself get poisoned - maybe you deserved it?

 

[Asguard]

Michael
your forgeting the most important part of our sociaty, we live in a LIBERAL democrasy which means all things should be permited UNLESS a specific harm can be shown

in the case of murder thats easy, in the case of homosexual marriage its not possable. There for murder should be a crime and homosexual marriage shouldnt be

 

[Michael]

Michael
your forgeting the most important part of our sociaty, we live in a LIBERAL democrasy which means all things should be permited UNLESS a specific harm can be shown

we live in a Republic haaa! anywya, I don't think that's true.

Asguard for ANY society to function, whether it's a democracy, republic, Islamic caliphate, Xiandom, Buddhist fiefdom, Japanese feudal estate, etc... people are expected to act within certain morales.

That means NO, you may not go fondle yourself while starring at nude breasts on the beach...

 

[Asguard]

so what right did we have to go to war based of afgainstans MORALS for fuck sake?
that pissed me off compleatly to be honest, that we have obsentiy laws on or books and we were invading a country based on the fact they require women to cover up

 

[Pandaemoni]

I think the state should get out of the marriage business. If you want to get married, that is a between you and your religion. The state should have no role in solemnizing the event, or giving you special rights afterward.

It is a curious religious ceremony that the state was drawn into in feudal times and simply never got out of entirely. Really though it should have no more a home in the law than baptism does.

As for why it made it into our law it's a complicated mix of feudal law (where it made sense for lords to limit marriage), church law, that was then taken up by the Church of England and later tinkered with by Parliament, and our just porting it into our law without really considering it deeply.

In any event, the fact that it has erupted into a religious issue (and the religious aspects are the reasons people want to limit the access of the disfavored minorities to the institution), shows the folly of keeping it as is. The government should not be in the business of preserving the "sacredness" of anything, or telling anyone what is or is not an affront to that sanctity.

I want to know a government bureaucrat's opinion on the sanctity of marriage about as much as I want to know his thoughts on consubstantiation.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why does a man need to care for a child? Because he wants to, maybe?

I'm saying its not an advantage for a man to have to support the woman and his children. I am talking not about ancient or modern marriage, but marriage as a social construct.

Still waiting on the advantages that marriage confers to men. I don't see any, which is why I asked you. I think marriage was a woman's idea, thats hardly an anti-woman position.

 

[Michael]

so what right did we have to go to war based of afgainstans MORALS for fuck sake?
that pissed me off compleatly to be honest, that we have obsentiy laws on or books and we were invading a country based on the fact they require women to cover up

we didn't invade anyone because of the hijab. Afghanistan was over 9/11 and Iraq for oil.

I mean look at KSA, they must be covered up.


That said, I'd be happy if people could walk around naked in AU I'd do it

 

[Michael]

marriage could have been a man's idea, it can confer an alliance though blood from one king to another.

 

[S.A.M.]

marriage could have been a man's idea, it can confer an alliance though blood from one king to another.

The idea of such an alliance would necessarily succeed the idea of a man supporting his child, not precede it

 

[madanthonywayne]

Yeah, there is no biological reason for people to be monogamous or have issues of fidelity and commitment. Its a method of social engineering.

Are you insane? No biological reasons? How about HIV, Chlamydia, Genital herpes, Genital warts, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, Syphilis, Herpes, etc. And what about the rearing of children (you know, that little side effect of sex)? Aren't they best raised via the cooperation of the mother and the father?

 

[Roman]

And the fact that women gain a lot from having a man around to rear a child.

Monogamy is something that one partner imposes on the other to increase their fitness. A male can increase his fitness by sleeping around, while still having a mate, presumably since the slight fitness loss to the offspring he sires with his mate is made up by siring more offspring elsewhere. The female wants to keep the male monogamous, since any time he spends courting females that aren't her are resources that aren't put into her fitness. The female can increase her fitness by sleeping with other males that have better genes, while having her mate raise them. The fitness cost to the male here is obvious- every offspring that his mate has that isn't his is one less offspring. So it's also in the male's best interest to keep the female from cheating, as well.

 

[Balerion]

I'm saying its not an advantage for a man to have to support the woman and his children. I am talking not about ancient or modern marriage, but marriage as a social construct.

Who says the man supports the woman? Who says it isn't equal? Can you tell me how it's unfairly tipped toward women, or are you simply going to ask me to provide all the evidence to support my stance, while providing nothing to back your own?

Still waiting on the advantages that marriage confers to men. I don't see any, which is why I asked you. I think marriage was a woman's idea, thats hardly an anti-woman position.

I already gave you ways marriage is, in many ways, very beneficial to the man while not beneficial to the woman. In the West, there have been some things that tip the scales in the favor of the woman, especially considering custody of the children, but in most societies, marriage does and has benefit the man more than the woman.

 

[S.A.M.]

Who says the man supports the woman? Who says it isn't equal? Can you tell me how it's unfairly tipped toward women, or are you simply going to ask me to provide all the evidence to support my stance, while providing nothing to back your own?

I already gave you ways marriage is, in many ways, very beneficial to the man while not beneficial to the woman. In the West, there have been some things that tip the scales in the favor of the woman, especially considering custody of the children, but in most societies, marriage does and has benefit the man more than the woman.

Unfairly tipped? Its advantageous to the woman (a) to have less children and (b) to have someone to support her during the childbirth and child care years. A single woman with no choice in conception [say, before the advent of contraceptive choices for women] would be left with the unsavoury prospect of both having the children and supporting them as well as herself. Plus, being physically weaker would also make her a prey to unwanted attentions and further limit her choices of both personal safety and the paternity of her children. Marriage is a [generally] safer option.

For a man, there is no real biological need to support the woman or her children [whether they are his children or not is not something he would be able to discern beyond trusting her- as the Kinsey report shows, women are as likely to be promiscuous as men]. So he essentially takes on a responsibility without which he would have more opportunity to spread his genes as well as a greater amount of time and resource for himself. After all, biologically, he is not burdened with the necessity of carrying or caring for the children he fathers. If you did not know that you had made a woman pregnant would you miss your child? This is not an option that women have.

Since the advent of contraceptive choices, women do not have to depend on men, both for regulating choice of conception or for the care of their progeny. Which is why you'll see more and more women opting out of conventional relationships, having fewer/no children and marrying later or not at all.

 

[Roman]

For a man, there is no real biological need to support the woman or her children [whether they are his children or not is not something he would be able to discern beyond trusting her- as the Kinsey report shows, women are as likely to be promiscuous as men]. So he essentially takes on a responsibility without which he would have more opportunity to spread his genes as well as a greater amount of time and resource for himself. After all, biologically, he is not burdened with the necessity of carrying or caring for the children he fathers. If you did not know that you had made a woman pregnant would you miss your child? This is not an option that women have.

sam, sam, sam. This is a false dichotomy. Monogamy-polygamy is a spectrum. A less attractive male can increase his fitness by raising offspring with a female that would otherwise not mate with him.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam, sam, sam. This is a false dichotomy. Monogamy-polygamy is a spectrum. A less attractive male can increase his fitness by raising offspring with a female that would otherwise not mate with him.

Whose offspring?

Sure, it can be a spectrum. But polyandry has been used more advantageously by males.

 

[Balerion]

Unfairly tipped? Its advantageous to the woman (a) to have less children and (b) to have someone to support her during the childbirth and child care years. A single woman with no choice in conception [say, before the advent of contraceptive choices for women] would be left with the unsavoury prospect of both having the children and supporting them as well as herself. Plus, being physically weaker would also make her a prey to unwanted attentions and further limit her choices of both personal safety and the paternity of her children. Marriage is a [generally] safer option.

How do you jump to the conclusion that being married equates to having less children? And what makes you assume that there are no single fathers out there, raising their children alone? You have to assume way too much for your little theory to work.

For a man, there is no real biological need to support the woman or her children [whether they are his children or not is not something he would be able to discern beyond trusting her- as the Kinsey report shows, women are as likely to be promiscuous as men]. So he essentially takes on a responsibility without which he would have more opportunity to spread his genes as well as a greater amount of time and resource for himself. After all, biologically, he is not burdened with the necessity of carrying or caring for the children he fathers. If you did not know that you had made a woman pregnant would you miss your child? This is not an option that women have.

Who says there is no biological need to support in men? Just because they don't carry the child means they have no biological need? Then why do you see so many men caring for their children? You mean that marriage is the only reason men stick around? You mean you've solved the age-old question of Nature vs Nurture? Wow! Sam, you brilliant bastard!

I just can't see your logic playing out realistically. Just because the woman carries the child does not mean that the father does not share a bond with that child, nor have a biological desire to raise it. All evidence points to the contrary, actually, considering the roles of fathers in so many cultures.

Since the advent of contraceptive choices, women do not have to depend on men, both for regulating choice of conception or for the care of their progeny. Which is why you'll see more and more women opting out of conventional relationships, having fewer/no children and marrying later or not at all.

There's no denying that contraception has given women far more control over their child-bearing habits, but it's also done the same thing for men. I mean, the way you make it sound, the condom doesn't benefit the man at all.