The decline of marriage is a good thing
#1
says a person that, though does not support modern feminism, has given the movement credit for helping "deconstruct" marriage in modern day. I asked this person why the decline of marriage is a good thing and he said the following -

Quote:I've yet to hear any objectively sound reason to get married - it is either cultural, dogmatic or, as with many atheists, subjective.

I do support secularism, for many varying reasons.  I agree and disagree with many points of opposing ideologies and views.

I noted that judiciary decisions on divorces greatly favor the women - they get the house & the dog, the man pays for child support till the kid's 18 etc. which would deter prospective men to the institution. He agreed.

On kids being born outside of marriage.
Quote:Many, many people. I've seen it done tons of times, especially with celebrities. Regardless, even if no one wanted to, it doesn't make it wrong. Truth isn't a democracy, and just because it isn't common, doesn't mean it is less efficient(And vise-versa). I don't recall us advancing our species because the pioneers of the past went with the herd, anyway.

I replied - "I don't see atheists popping out babies outside of marriage like "Meh, what about it?" They either get married and have kids (the irony) or they have kids and then a couple of years done the line they get married." He responded -

Quote:See the above + So what? This isn't a factual argument. You are literally using YOUR experiences and your perception of them as if they form empirical evidence. Also, many atheists have subjective reasons to get married. It changes nothing. You have presented no empirical, factual beneficiary attributes of marriage thus far.

I then say, "It seems like you want this institution to be looked as a pointless thing to enter." The person goes on -

Quote:I wouldn't go that far (Although you have done nothing to prove otherwise) - I simply wish that most people could critically deconstruct the concept of marriage in the modern day, and truly decide if it is worth it or not. Few are those out of the group that wants to get married, whom I converse with, that can actually articulate why they wish to do so in the first place. I say it is rightfully so because this decline is focused on marriage, and not on relationships, which brings me faith that people are looking at their needs and wants, and whether or not marriage is in any way relevant to them. Many MGTOWs still have heterosexual relationships.

I do agree that more people should not rush into marriage, that they should look at marriage as a very serious thing and not as "it's what seemed the most appropriate at the time for our relationship" mentality. But he loses me on the whole "deconstruct" marriage. Remember he's coming from this at a secular point of view, that once marriage is deconstructed that it has little value to most people (the "people are looking at their needs & wants, and whether or not marriage is in any way relevant to them") on earth since it has been thorough vetted in its purpose. Unsurprisingly this "deciding if it's relevant in their lives in any way" is the same approach to secularists towards whether or nor religion plays into the lives.

MGTOW: Men Go Their Own Way. (Not marrying, dating here and there, not having kids.)

So the wisdom goes: Marriage itself is rather pointless. Relationships can be sustained outside of the institution and marriage is more of a cultural "pillow" - sort of like religion, where if you want it then you have it, but like religion, it's not truly necessary.

Besides what I have written, I also want to pose a question. "What is the point of marriage outside of a religious context?" Here is an atheist posing the question to CAF - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=695673


Reply
#2
I don't have time to go digging now, but wanted to offer a few thoughts. From a secular point of view.

From a child-rearing perspective marriages tend to be stabler than common-law relationships, and we know from a multitude of studies that children raised in homes with both mother and father fair much, much better, suffer less poverty, are better adjusted overall, etc. So if a person has any inkling of ever wanting kids, marriage is a good thing.

Current rules are such that property division (at least where I live) only kick in after three years of living together, so if a relationship falls apart during the first 35 months, they're SOL if they're not married. Marriage makes sense for the person who is coming from a more economically disadvataged position in a relationship, although that could be rectified with a change in law.

As for Atheists having kids outside of marriage, lots don't simply because they contracept and/or have abortions. I know several like that (that have had abortions), arguing that they're "not ready" for parenthood or can't see themselves having kids with that person (which begs the question... why are you having sex then?). The ones that do have kids/get married do so because it's the ultimate "relationship upgrade".

You do, in some respects, need to keep in mind that these arguments concerning marriage that atheists make are in fact quite valid when you remove God. There is very little motivation to get married when you believe it's a union of convenience, or of personal fulfillment, or whatever the current cultural belief about marriage is these days. Even among non-Catholic Christians, there's common perception that marriage essentially becomes a license to have a sexual partner, and it's not about convenants (and how could it be, to someone who has no idea of that concept?), or the good of children or spouses, etc.

Reply
#3
Every civilization had something like marriage. How is this cultural? The same goes for religion. To not perceive a constant behind variations is literally a sign of dumbness.
Of course marriage is natural: when you have a kid with someone the structure of family is almost implied, and marriage is precisely the relation with the other person with whom you had/will have children and form a family (remember, civil authorities have no competence for dealing with this since its the two persons who are entering into marriage that brings the marriage into being, and if the persons are pagans this is automatic, without the need of a qualified witness). And religion is necessary by our very directedness to transcendence. The argument here is a bit more sophisticated, but it can be made.
The experiment of abolition of marriage and religion is quite recent, and its not total (apparently, its harder than you think to get rid of these things), and it has brought about many societal ills, like communism or the anodyne contemporary nihilism. And its a fact that children born out of wedlock (and with fragmented families) usually don't do as well as children with intact families (there's a bunch of statistics on this).
Reply
#4
Honestly, in the absence of God marriage IS pointless. If we believe God binds us then in the absence of God there is nothing to bind us and "marriage" just doesn't happen. Now, undeniably, marriage is all about the woman. The wedding industry exploits female vanity and ego. This then in turn leads women to think they "rule the roost" which is why studies have shown the more you spend on a wedding the less likely it is to last. Feminists are more than happy to then capitalize on the failure on cash it on the backs of men. Until women have equal skin in the game, like everything else in western society, marriage is a net loss for men.

The Church also propagates the worship of the vagina. I'm honestly surprised we don't have gold version of one at the Vatican. Pope JPII started that with his Muleries Dignitatem. Francis put his foot down with feminism somewhat but there is still much more that needs to be done. You have young women in America being radicalized by ISIS a world away (http://news.yahoo.com/teen-stabs-her-mom...15879.html). You would think a little good old decent Catholic patriarchy would go a long way here, but the clergy just doesn't have the gonads to take a stand for it. Little do they know if they turn off enough men eventually they will be forced to do one thing they really don't want to do and that is ordain women. You reap what you sow! You want to praise feminism in a circle of faith? Well, get ready when they want a seat at the altar!
Reply
#5
(09-17-2015, 08:09 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: Honestly, in the absence of God marriage IS pointless. If we believe God binds us then in the absence of God there is nothing to bind us and "marriage" just doesn't happen. Now, undeniably, marriage is all about the woman. The wedding industry exploits female vanity and ego. This then in turn leads women to think they "rule the roost" which is why studies have shown the more you spend on a wedding the less likely it is to last. Feminists are more than happy to then capitalize on the failure on cash it on the backs of men. Until women have equal skin in the game, like everything else in western society, marriage is a net loss for men.

The Church also propagates the worship of the vagina. I'm honestly surprised we don't have gold version of one at the Vatican. Pope JPII started that with his Muleries Dignitatem. Francis put his foot down with feminism somewhat but there is still much more that needs to be done. You have young women in America being radicalized by ISIS a world away (http://news.yahoo.com/teen-stabs-her-mom...15879.html). You would think a little good old decent Catholic patriarchy would go a long way here, but the clergy just doesn't have the gonads to take a stand for it. Little do they know if they turn off enough men eventually they will be forced to do one thing they really don't want to do and that is ordain women. You reap what you sow! You want to praise feminism in a circle of faith? Well, get ready when they want a seat at the altar!

Marriage is certainly natural, so it doesn't really require God. As I said, most civilizations had marriage, even barbarians (Tacitus).

Are you Catholic still, divinesilence? The Church most certainly does not promote idolatry.
Reply
#6
(09-17-2015, 08:25 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Marriage is certainly natural, so it doesn't really require God. As I said, most civilizations had marriage, even barbarians (Tacitus).

Are you Catholic still, divinesilence? The Church most certainly does not promote idolatry.

Yes, I most certainly am. I won't jump ship like a Protestant. I'll hang around to pick up the pieces after the roof comes in. The Church doesn't promote idolatry but sometimes the individuals that lead it do. That's what Muleries Dignitatem was all about. Pander to the women in the pews in an effort to keep the weekly attendance up instead of speaking the truth.

Everything requires God. No soul would exist without Him no matter how much it denies Him. "Marriage" as defined by the secular state is nothing more than a legal contract and contracts can work out to be a bad deal for one party. In that case its best to steer clear of them.....
Reply
#7
Yikes! This person probably read (gasps) the manosphere.
Reply
#8
(09-25-2015, 05:59 PM)introvert Wrote: Yikes! This person probably read (gasps) the manosphere.

I know the "manosphere" may be anathema to woman but there are bells of truth to it. Take a look at the "womanosphere" (a.k.a. feminist dens) and its equally or more toxic. You have some feminists that think every walking man is plotting to rape them and that ALL heterosexual sex is rape. I mean really, you can't make this stuff up. Why would a man want to marry some harpie that always keeps him at an arms length? How long do you think a marriage can last with one party in perpetual suspicion of the basic foundation of the other? Men are smart enough to realize that women jumped ship on marriage with the feminist revolution. Many women calling themselves wives these days are little more than roommates you can have sex with without it being called a sin.
Reply
#9
(09-25-2015, 05:59 PM)introvert Wrote: Yikes! This person probably read (gasps) the manosphere.

Haha! I wouldn't be surprised. The manosphere can be a strange place (eg. MGTOW: Men Go There Own Way and  "pick-up" artists types). When just last year I started to really take my faith more seriously I also stumbled upon what is called the "manosphere." Some helpful blogs here and there, and other blogs were just plain depressing.

(09-25-2015, 09:47 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote:
(09-25-2015, 05:59 PM)introvert Wrote: Yikes! This person probably read (gasps) the manosphere.

I know the "manosphere" may be anathema to woman but there are bells of truth to it. Take a look at the "womanosphere" (a.k.a. feminist dens) and its equally or more toxic. You have some feminists that think every walking man is plotting to rape them and that ALL heterosexual sex is rape. I mean really, you can't make this stuff up. Why would a man want to marry some harpie that always keeps him at an arms length? How long do you think a marriage can last with one party in perpetual suspicion of the basic foundation of the other? Men are smart enough to realize that women jumped ship on marriage with the feminist revolution. Many women calling themselves wives these days are little more than roommates you can have sex with without it being called a sin.

The manosphere does serve as the "other side" of the coin against the modern day feminists. That I'll give them credit for.

bold: I have a few friends who cohabitated before they got married. My cousin cohabited with her then-boyfriend (now husband) and it was a civil wedding conducted by a homosexual officiate. My mother and I, the next day, were talking about the ceremony and she agreed that it was nothing transcendental about it. It was seriously, for me at least, a bizarre reality. Another couple, a close friend of mine, recently moved in with his girlfriend once they announced their engagement - they're getting married next year. Statistic have shown that cohabitation before marriage results in a greater divorce rate. I hope that fate does not befall them. I for one will not cohabitate - even before I started to take my faith in a more serious, mature manner, I always felt that cohabiting was "playing house" and understood, rightfully, that roommates were anyone not of romantic ties. It's a strange set-up.
Reply
#10
(09-17-2015, 10:56 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: You do, in some respects, need to keep in mind that these arguments concerning marriage that atheists make are in fact quite valid when you remove God. There is very little motivation to get married when you believe it's a union of convenience, or of personal fulfillment, or whatever the current cultural belief about marriage is these days. Even among non-Catholic Christians, there's common perception that marriage essentially becomes a license to have a sexual partner, and it's not about convenants (and how could it be, to someone who has no idea of that concept?), or the good of children or spouses, etc.

True, they do have valid points. This is where secularism reasoning rears its nihilistic head. This is why I see atheists getting married to other atheists as bizarre (just n facebook, an old family friend's daughter had a Viking-theme wedding).  Why even fight for "marriage equality"? Then again this all comes back the "give meaning" to things even without God mentality. Why should I take it seriously and why should I respect it?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 23 Guest(s)