Why marriage no longer makes sense

[Againsheila]

No, because women only come in individual, one-person units, which means they can't do as much as two people can. We call that "mathematics". Not only that, children are PRODUCED by two people, and need and deserve both their progenitors in their lives. And third, women are . . . wait for it . . . WOMEN, which means they have jack shit to teach children about relating to males, let alone being males. Duhh.

Having done both the single mom and married mom thing, I can state categorically that anyone who thinks children needing and deserving both parents is just about "taking the mother's autonomy" is a complete and utter dumbfuck who would do their own children a favor by not having them.

I have to disagree.. If it werent for women with strong boundaries and rules, men would not exist..

They would just be males, trapped in some freakish 14 year old mindset..

Learning how to be a man does not require brawn or beard.. it only requires a good, solid, anthropological understanding of the male gender.

There are just as many men out there as there are women who do not know how to change a tire, rebuild a carburator, throw a long pass with the football, or slam dunk a basketball.. and many of them are considered just as manly and virile as many of those dumb jocks are, who incidentally, can't balance a checkbook or keep a hobby that does not involve getting sweaty and dirty..

Families that have rigid gender roles are one of society's PROBLEMS. If we are to raise our boys into being extraordinary men, then we need to drop the neanderthalic bullshit and teach them to be contributing citizens of the world, rather than just forcing them to fit some freaky mold, and turning them into robots..

My own son made me the coolest birthday present... He cut patterns of fabric out, and sewed me a beautiful snowman quilt.. Its only about the size of a baby blanket, but it was really nice and he put a lot of effort into it. I didn't even teach him.. He asked my neighbor to teach him how to quilt and sew, after seeing some quilts that looked really cool to him.

And no- my son is not GAY, so don't go there. He has had a couple of girlfriends already, and one time, I even caught him with a "stuff" magazine, where he cut out the pictures of the girls (who were in their underwear- yeah I confiscated the whole kit and kaboodle) and pasted them into his own little girly magazine, complete with captions. He also took some of the girls pictures and taped them to his wall.
Oh and when we used to go to hooters, when he was small, he would shake his chest at the girls, and stare at their tits, and the servers would all come over and shake their jugs for him, LMAO!!!! I made him stop acting like that when he was like 5, though.. lol Little brat.. hahaha Cute brat, though.. MY brat.. No dad needed.

Curious why you had to pronounce he isn't gay? As for confiscating his Stuff kit n' kaboodle......that was cruel!!

I more curious as to why she felt the need to take a 5 year old to "hooters"????
I've never been myself....is the food that good?

 

[Againsheila]

It appears you had a harder time being a single parent versus having someone to help you out and you're somewhat bitter about that challenge. That cannot be translated into an unequivocal justified patriarchal mandate. You try to hide all of this behind the need to follow "nature" but very rarely is this ever consistent. Do you shave your legs? Do you tell other women to not wear make-up? Do you? Those activities aren't "natural" yet I am confident you have not argued against them nor stopped participating.
Calling someone else a dumbfuck out of disagreement proves making babies doesn't make one mature.

Sorry, Spanky. Don't project onto me, because it makes me feel like I need a shower. There's no bitterness involved in realizing that it's easier to handle life's crap as part of a team as opposed to a solo act. Like I said, that's just mathematics. And I have no idea what this "patriarchal mandate" you're babbling about is, but I suspect it's about YOUR issues being splattered all over the topic, rather than anything inherent.

It saddens me that I have to actually explain to someone who is, at least putatively, an adult that there's a world of difference between grooming choices and birthing and raising children. I am at this point going to simply let the mere fact of pointing out something so painfully, glaringly, childishly obvious stand as all the argument and refutation needed.

I don't worry terribly about whether or not dumbfucks find me mature. Shockingly, impressing you and winning your admiration doesn't fall high on my priority list.

You are being quite misleading and borderline dishonest by the claim it's easier as a team versus solo. By your above posts it is very clear it is not simply about the number of people but more importantly the genders. Here is the evidence: would you say it is better for a baby boy to be raised by his mother and two women versus his biological mother and father? In order to stay loyal to your "mathematics" defense you must answer "yes." We all see your position is not rooted in a team effort but rather the genders so don't insult our intelligence and accidentally embarrass yourself by these sophomoric attempts of reshaping your position whenever you feel trapped by your own words.

From the outright bitterness in all of your responses it sounds like you haven't had a breath-taking orgasm in about ten years. Is this why you are obsessed with needing a man? The patriarchal mandate is put forth by people who claim a child must have a mother and father. This is your position and it is based on the need to socially relate to others based not on position, accident, family ties, or friendships. It's based on maintaining a world ethos anchored in addressing people by what is between their legs.

"A child raised by a single parent does worse on every measurable level than a chid raised by two parents".....read it in a magazine. That said, I've read other articles...it seems two parents are the key, one being a man and one being a woman is prefered but children raised by two gay parents still do better than a child raised by a single parent. Let's face it, it takes two to have a child and two to raise a child. Anyone that thinks otherwise is really bad at math. Who takes care of the kid when you're sick? When you have reached the end of your rope, who takes over for you? I have two special needs kids and I would have gone crazy long ago if it weren't for my very supportive husband, and I'm sure he feels the same about me.

Anyone who purposely has a child, knowing they will be raising that child by themselves is putting their own needs ahead of the child. I don't include single people who adopt children in that...ONE parent is better than no parents, but two parents are still better than one.

 

[immto]

The real problem with the Gay Marriage issue is that Marriage is a
religious institution. It has deep roots in the bible. Many
organized religions have very specific ideals on marriage. The issue
we face today is not simply equal rights as many liberals would have
you believe. But in fact it's about rights of the church. Many angry
gays who just want revenge on the religious community for their
treatment wish to force the issue of marriage onto the church. I did
say many, not ALL. There are plenty of gay people who would be happy
to simply have equal treatment in all 50 states namely the ability to
share their lives with a chosen mate and to share the same privileges
and tax incentive as well.

Gays deserve to get all the same privileges and I think most people
are with me on this one. I don't think there are many folks saying
otherwise. The real fear here is that once they get "marriage" it
will only be a few minutes before some wild activist couple will walk
into a Catholic Church and say, "marry us". The Catholic Church will
of course say no, and then the next step will be a lawsuit claiming
discrimination based on sex. This is where the issue lies. We can't
let those in the gay community who wish to force churches into
accepting gay marriage win.

Now those who support gay marriage argue that they don't want to
change marriage they only want to add to it. The issue here again is
that marriage is at its root a religious institution that has become
as generic as the facial tissue, "Kleenex". The problem is that many
years ago people who wanted to be together but did not want to belong
to a church went to the courthouse and got "MARRIED" The Government
decided that they were going to issue "Marriage" certificates. What
they should have done was to recognize that the State had no right in
the Marriage business. They should have issued some sort of Civil
Union Certificate from the very beginning to all people who did not
want to get joined by the Church.

It seems to me that the only answer here to make all happy is for the
government to come up with a Civil Union for all people and assign a
certificate that gives the legally binding side of the arrangement and
then allow each church to grant marriages as they see fit. This would
ease the tension for those who defend the churches right to protect
their traditional values at the same time it gives Homosexuals the
same legal rights as Heterosexuals.

 

[CurveLight]

The real problem with the Gay Marriage issue is that Marriage is a
religious institution. It has deep roots in the bible. Many
organized religions have very specific ideals on marriage. The issue
we face today is not simply equal rights as many liberals would have
you believe. But in fact it's about rights of the church. Many angry
gays who just want revenge on the religious community for their
treatment wish to force the issue of marriage onto the church. I did
say many, not ALL. There are plenty of gay people who would be happy
to simply have equal treatment in all 50 states namely the ability to
share their lives with a chosen mate and to share the same privileges
and tax incentive as well.

Gays deserve to get all the same privileges and I think most people
are with me on this one. I don't think there are many folks saying
otherwise. The real fear here is that once they get "marriage" it
will only be a few minutes before some wild activist couple will walk
into a Catholic Church and say, "marry us". The Catholic Church will
of course say no, and then the next step will be a lawsuit claiming
discrimination based on sex. This is where the issue lies. We can't
let those in the gay community who wish to force churches into
accepting gay marriage win.

Now those who support gay marriage argue that they don't want to
change marriage they only want to add to it. The issue here again is
that marriage is at its root a religious institution that has become
as generic as the facial tissue, "Kleenex". The problem is that many
years ago people who wanted to be together but did not want to belong
to a church went to the courthouse and got "MARRIED" The Government
decided that they were going to issue "Marriage" certificates. What
they should have done was to recognize that the State had no right in
the Marriage business. They should have issued some sort of Civil
Union Certificate from the very beginning to all people who did not
want to get joined by the Church.

It seems to me that the only answer here to make all happy is for the
government to come up with a Civil Union for all people and assign a
certificate that gives the legally binding side of the arrangement and
then allow each church to grant marriages as they see fit. This would
ease the tension for those who defend the churches right to protect
their traditional values at the same time it gives Homosexuals the
same legal rights as Heterosexuals.

How long will this bullshit get touted? Why is the camps who make this claim can never support their theory? Gay marriage has been legal in MA for about five years and aside from the fact divorced rates have decreased in that time, can you show where any church was forced to marry a gay couple?

It looks to me like homophobes are forces to invent this shit because if they were honest they would have to admit the only reason for being against gay marriage is bigotry.

 

[midcan5]

Acts, you need to slow down before you throw out all that makes life satisfying. Check out Eric Fromm sometime, he is a bit of a rebel and has never been real popular due to his tough stances on certain subjects.

from a review on Amazon.

"This book belongs on the life changers shelf in the bookstore. Because modern man is alienated from himself, from his fellow men, and from nature, we seek refuge from our aloneness in the concepts of love and marriage (pp. 79-81). However, psychologist and social philosopher, Erich Fromm (1900-1980), observes that real love "is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone." It is only through developing one's total personality to the capacity of loving one's neighbor with "true humility, courage, faith and discipline" that one attains the capacity to experience real love. This should be considered a rare achievement (p. vii). The active character of true love, Fromm observes, involves the basic elements of care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge (p. 24)."

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Art-Loving-Erich-Fromm/dp/0061129739/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257519354&sr=1-5]Amazon.com: The Art of Loving (9780061129735): Erich Fromm: Books[/ame]

 

[midcan5]

The real problem with the Gay Marriage issue is that Marriage is a religious institution.

Whenever I read of people concerned that gays should be allowed to marry I wonder what world they live in? Do they watch Povich, Springer, Phil, or any of the other reality TV shows and not wonder why heterosexuals are allowed to marry? Heterosexual marriage sure as heck inflicts a great deal more pain and suffering on their spouses and children than gays do. Consider too the recent financial meltdown. It probably will hurt more families and children than any act of legislation that gives gays the same rights as the other wackos who marry. And don't get me wrong I have been married forever and we have fine children also married. But our priorities are skewed when we focus on this issue and do not consider the real pain in the world.


repost

 

[CurveLight]

Evangelicals are the loudest whiners but it is that same group with the highest divorce rate. Maybe they are afraid gays will have a much lower divorce rate?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Evangelicals are the loudest whiners but it is that same group with the highest divorce rate. Maybe they are afraid gays will have a much lower divorce rate?

After watching the "party of family values" tout some of their better champions (John Ensign, Larry Craig, etc.), I'm thinking that you may be right.

I mean......how bad would it for Christian conservatives to have a higher divorce rate than gays?

OF COURSE they want to keep gays from marrying. They don't want to get shown up.

 

[CurveLight]

Evangelicals are the loudest whiners but it is that same group with the highest divorce rate. Maybe they are afraid gays will have a much lower divorce rate?

After watching the "party of family values" tout some of their better champions (John Ensign, Larry Craig, etc.), I'm thinking that you may be right.

I mean......how bad would it for Christian conservatives to have a higher divorce rate than gays?

OF COURSE they want to keep gays from marrying. They don't want to get shown up.

That would be part of it but the ultimate price would be needing to find a new scapegoat. Notice how many homophobes don't say shit about gay marriage in MA?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Evangelicals are the loudest whiners but it is that same group with the highest divorce rate. Maybe they are afraid gays will have a much lower divorce rate?

After watching the "party of family values" tout some of their better champions (John Ensign, Larry Craig, etc.), I'm thinking that you may be right.

I mean......how bad would it for Christian conservatives to have a higher divorce rate than gays?

OF COURSE they want to keep gays from marrying. They don't want to get shown up.

That would be part of it but the ultimate price would be needing to find a new scapegoat. Notice how many homophobes don't say shit about gay marriage in MA?

Kinda looks like the GOP is turning themselves into that very thing themselves. Have you seen how the GOP is starting to demonize parts of itself?

 

[Smartt33]

NoMarriage.com - Why marriage no longer makes sense.

Traditional marriage balances different privileges and obligations for men and women. Modern woman wants all the benefits of "equality" without any of the responsibilities.

Traditional Western culture balanced special privileges for women with special obligations, and the same for men.

Equality states that no one get special privileges, and that responsibilities and rights should be equally shared.

Either system is balanced and fair. The problem with modern Western culture is that many women want only the positives from both systems:

They want special privileges from the traditional system (men paying, being "gentlemen" by using special deferential manners and language to women, being the main breadwinner, etc) but not the old-fashioned obligations (being modest and ladylike, being a housewife, etc).

Traditional marriage makes sense, and is according to the design of the creator.

I believe it will always make sense, and there is no better plan available anywhere. Just because man messes it up with some stupid unequal laws does not mean we throw God's marriage plan out. Lets go back to the basics, and erase some of those man made reguilations. BTW, even Moses' laws on marriage were man made, and not according to God's perfect design.