Should marriage be abolished?

[Costa Fierro]

Yes. It is an outdated concept that serves no purpose, especially in jurisdictions where common law marriage applies.

It's important to people, and they enjoy it.

I'd question both of those assertions.

People derive joy from cocaine as well, doesn't justify blowing ten grand on it.

Marriage doesn't give you seizures, heart disease, and lung damage.

That sounds like marriage to me, well the heart disease and lung damage at least.

[Necroghastia]

It's important to people, and they enjoy it.

I'd question both of those assertions.

They seem like well-grounded statements to me. What's there to question about them?

Marriage doesn't give you seizures, heart disease, and lung damage.

That sounds like marriage to me, well the heart disease and lung damage at least.

How does that sound like marriage?

[Belshekistan]

I don't see the problem with it. As an atheist I'll probably never get married in the traditional sense, I.E. in a church, but I like the idea of a little ceremony to sort of make things official. If you wanna get married, fine. If you wanna not get married, also fine. Again, I fail see what the problem is here.

[Luziyca]

The term "marriage" has religious connotations, so I'd just change the terminology to "civil union," define it as comprised of two people over the age of majority, and transfer all the benefits marriage currently has to the civil union.

People can call it whatever they like, so marriage can still exist, while at the same time assuaging those who are opposed to the idea of marriage by not having it be a thing.

[Torisakia]

That sounds like marriage to me, well the heart disease and lung damage at least.

How does that sound like marriage?

I've heard horror stories. It's pretty much dead on.

[Izandai]

The term "marriage" has religious connotations, so I'd just change the terminology to "civil union," define it as comprised of two people over the age of majority, and transfer all the benefits marriage currently has to the civil union.

People can call it whatever they like, so marriage can still exist, while at the same time assuaging those who are opposed to the idea of marriage by not having it be a thing.

I could be wrong, but I think many jurisdictions around the world have already separated the legal rights and benefits commonly associated with being married from the religious institution of it.

[Kustonia]

In my opinion it shouldn't, and I don't even know why some people want to abolish it.

In the future there's no need for it.

Why would a guy marry a sex bot?

Because there's so much more to life than sex. A lot of people spend their entire lives living for sexual pleasure yet feel entirely unfulfilled when their sexual primacy is over.

Marriage is an institution established in love between one man and one woman. It's meant to keep and sustain a lasting relationship between these two people, and to think that intimacy is "old-fashioned" is totally incompetent.

[Izandai]

In the future there's no need for it.

Why would a guy marry a sex bot?

Because there's so much more to life than sex. A lot of people spend their entire lives living for sexual pleasure yet feel entirely unfulfilled when their sexual primacy is over.

Marriage is an institution established in love between one man and one woman. It's meant to keep and sustain a lasting relationship between these two people, and to think that that is "old-fashioned" is totally incompetent.

Or two men. Or two women. Or two people of indeterminate gender. Or any combination thereof, possibly even including more than two people.

[Stellar Colonies]

In the future there's no need for it.

Why would a guy marry a sex bot?

Because there's so much more to life than sex. A lot of people spend their entire lives living for sexual pleasure yet feel entirely unfulfilled when their sexual primacy is over.

Marriage is an institution established in love between one man and one woman. It's meant to keep and sustain a lasting relationship between these two people, and to think that that is "old-fashioned" is totally incompetent.

Not necessarily.

I generally agree with your post, though.

[Benuty]

People derive joy from cocaine as well, doesn't justify blowing ten grand on it.

Marriage doesn't give you seizures, heart disease, and lung damage.

Unless your spouse is trying to kill you that is.

[Luziyca]

The term "marriage" has religious connotations, so I'd just change the terminology to "civil union," define it as comprised of two people over the age of majority, and transfer all the benefits marriage currently has to the civil union.

People can call it whatever they like, so marriage can still exist, while at the same time assuaging those who are opposed to the idea of marriage by not having it be a thing.

I could be wrong, but I think many jurisdictions around the world have already separated the legal rights and benefits commonly associated with being married from the religious institution of it.

Which is why they can take it a step further and change the terminology so to indicate a clean break from the religious institution of marriage.

After all, if jurisdictions can make civil unions a thing so same-sex people can marry their partners while "protecting the sanctity of marriage" by keeping the outdated definition of "one man, one woman," I don't see why we can't just CTRL+H marriage with civil union from our legal codes, so we can separate the religious institution of marriage from the government.

[Benuty]

I could be wrong, but I think many jurisdictions around the world have already separated the legal rights and benefits commonly associated with being married from the religious institution of it.

Which is why they can take it a step further and change the terminology so to indicate a clean break from the religious institution of marriage.

After all, if jurisdictions can make civil unions a thing so same-sex people can marry their partners while "protecting the sanctity of marriage" by keeping the outdated definition of "one man, one woman," I don't see why we can't just CTRL+H marriage with civil union from our legal codes, so we can separate the religious institution of marriage from the government.

I agree with you on this since the contractual part of these unions grant people rights that most others don't have anyway. While marriage often carries religious undertones throughout much of history these unions were done for political, financial, and social rather than religious reasons. The religious aspect came more as an aspect of a society where you people began to realize a dowry, and all the other theater involved in unions wasn't necessary, and maybe just perhaps people could allow love to play a factor as well.

[Izandai]

Marriage doesn't give you seizures, heart disease, and lung damage.

Unless your spouse is trying to kill you that is.

Sure, but that's a problem with that spouse, that specific relationship, and possibly societal pressures that make it harder than it should be for that marriage and relationship to be ended. That's not a problem with the concept of marriage inherently.

[Britannia Maior]

Nay. Any abolishment of the institution of marriage serves no purpose other than to degrade and corrupt human culture. The idea of abolishing it is absolutely condemnable and shouldn’t be supported by anyone unless you want a degenerate World State.

[Izandai]

I could be wrong, but I think many jurisdictions around the world have already separated the legal rights and benefits commonly associated with being married from the religious institution of it.

Which is why they can take it a step further and change the terminology so to indicate a clean break from the religious institution of marriage.

After all, if jurisdictions can make civil unions a thing so same-sex people can marry their partners while "protecting the sanctity of marriage" by keeping the outdated definition of "one man, one woman," I don't see why we can't just CTRL+H marriage with civil union from our legal codes, so we can separate the religious institution of marriage from the government.

Again, my understanding was that this had basically been done already in many places, but if I'm wrong, yeah, it should be, and it should be done anywhere it hasn't been either way.

[Benuty]

Unless your spouse is trying to kill you that is.

Sure, but that's a problem with that spouse, that specific relationship, and possibly societal pressures that make it harder than it should be for that marriage and relationship to be ended. That's not a problem with the concept of marriage inherently.

https://www.reddit.com/r/woosh/

[Izandai]

Nay. Any abolishment of the institution of marriage serves no purpose other than to degrade and corrupt human culture. The idea of abolishing it is absolutely condemnable and shouldn’t be supported by anyone unless you want a degenerate World State.

Okay, I think you're going a bit far there. Abolishing marriage is a dumb idea, but it's not like if the concept didn't exist all of society would collapse.

[Isvonia]

[deleted]

[Benuty]

Nay. Any abolishment of the institution of marriage serves no purpose other than to degrade and corrupt human culture. The idea of abolishing it is absolutely condemnable and shouldn’t be supported by anyone unless you want a degenerate World State.

I assume you are referencing Huxley?

The issue is marriage wasn't so much as abolished as the citizens of the world state were conditioned to either not know about it, find it alien (due to the reservations), or a reminder of how "savage" their world used to be. This was literally part, and parcel of the world state programming to ensure an industrially efficient, and occupied citizen was kept distracted by pseudo-religious rituals, drugs, mindless consumerism, and a novice attempt at utopia.

[Disgraces]

Definition of marriage: the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).

I don't see anything religious about that.

[Izandai]

Sure, but that's a problem with that spouse, that specific relationship, and possibly societal pressures that make it harder than it should be for that marriage and relationship to be ended. That's not a problem with the concept of marriage inherently.

https://www.reddit.com/r/woosh/

Look, on this site, it's literally impossible to know for sure at first blush whether someone is making a joke or being serious. Poe is the god-emperor of this domain, and we his powerless subjects.

[Benuty]

Nay. Any abolishment of the institution of marriage serves no purpose other than to degrade and corrupt human culture. The idea of abolishing it is absolutely condemnable and shouldn’t be supported by anyone unless you want a degenerate World State.

Okay, I think you're going a bit far there. Abolishing marriage is a dumb idea, but it's not like if the concept didn't exist all of society would collapse.

In a specific context to which I think the poster is referencing, the book [Brave New World] basically takes Ford's assembly line approach, and applies it to human psychology, and social interactions. Its obviously hyperbole, but is represented as an example of what could happen if attempts to abolish what we regard as truth, and convention were to occur.

[Britannia Maior]

Nay. Any abolishment of the institution of marriage serves no purpose other than to degrade and corrupt human culture. The idea of abolishing it is absolutely condemnable and shouldn’t be supported by anyone unless you want a degenerate World State.

I assume you are referencing Huxley?

The issue is marriage wasn't so much as abolished as the citizens of the world state were conditioned to either not know about it, find it alien (due to the reservations), or a reminder of how "savage" their world used to be. This was literally part, and parcel of the world state programming to ensure an industrially efficient, and occupied citizen was kept distracted by pseudo-religious rituals, drugs, mindless consumerism, and a novice attempt at utopia.

Yes, I am referring to Huxley’s work.

It was practically abolished in that case, albeit in a manner that isn’t common or orthodox.

[Valentine Z]

"Duuude, marriage is like totally outdated", says a hippie, wearing a multi-colored robe and in need of a wash. "They're like, restrictive and they bring down the vibe, man. Why put people in a box? Ban marriage, and let us roam free and we can all be brothers and sisters! It's what's nature wanted!"

-----

Seriously though? Nah, nope. Shotgun wedding, forced marriage (different from shotgun wedding in terms of details involved), etc, they're the real concern, of course. Child marriage as well, that's a problem.

Normal, everyday, "two adults voluntarily love each other" type of marriage? Nah, why try to "fix" something that's not exactly broken by abolishing it?

[Benuty]

I assume you are referencing Huxley?

The issue is marriage wasn't so much as abolished as the citizens of the world state were conditioned to either not know about it, find it alien (due to the reservations), or a reminder of how "savage" their world used to be. This was literally part, and parcel of the world state programming to ensure an industrially efficient, and occupied citizen was kept distracted by pseudo-religious rituals, drugs, mindless consumerism, and a novice attempt at utopia.

Yes, I am referring to Huxley’s work.

It was practically abolished in that case, albeit in a manner that isn’t common or orthodox.

Abolished by gunpoint for the first case, but everyone who knew about it was either long dead or in a reservation naturally or exiled to serve as spectacle. No one sat down in a legislature and thought "You know what would be a good idea?". The process was entirely without the consent of the population because those who survived the apocalyptic war that took place before knew better than the remaining human population.