PDA

View Full Version : Marriage


mattsmith48
July 31st, 2016, 11:09 PM
Why do people still get married today? People used to do it because religion was telling them they had to be married to have sex and make children. Now most religious people dont really give shit what their God or Gods think. They almost all masturbate and have premarital sex, even catholic priest do it, people dont give a shit if you live together or have a kid and your not married. I know some people get married because its a good thing for them financially, beside that I dont see why people still get married today or want to get married in the future, why spend that much money on a wedding espacially with a low success rate it and how much a divorce will cost you I dont see why they want to take that chance. What you guys think? Why do people still get married today? Is marriage still relevant today?

Judean Zealot
July 31st, 2016, 11:27 PM
Marriage is essentially a sacramental, or if you're irreligious, a formal commitment of fidelity and stability regarding one's family life. If you want to embrace a future in which those values have no place in society, go on ahead, but don't expect people to enthusiastically follow.

One also wonders why you see the legal recognition of same sex marriage as something significant, as you've expressed numerous times.

Typhlosion
August 1st, 2016, 12:02 AM
If I have a significant other in Brazil and desire to continue our relationship in the US, marriage would be necessary (or at least facilitate) bringing them to the US and granting them a US citizenship. If I'm also not mistaken, there are some tax benefits to being a married couple in the US. It's also a symbolism of settling down with a person you most love. For all those reasons, I would like to get married in the future.

But I'm not spending a buttload of cash on a party. Nooooo way.

Also, concerning the disadvantages of marriage, you might be interested in an online movement, MGTOW, or, Men Going on Their Own Way. While it has degraded becoming cult-y and ideological, the message is interesting to consider. MGTOW folk criticize issues on male inequality like alimony, disadvantages in divorces courts, suicide rates, among others. While I do not affiliate myself with them, they still might have something to say and think about.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 12:37 AM
Marriage is essentially a sacramental, or if you're irreligious, a formal commitment of fidelity and stability regarding one's family life. If you want to embrace a future in which those values have no place in society, go on ahead, but don't expect people to enthusiastically follow.

One also wonders why you see the legal recognition of same sex marriage as something significant, as you've expressed numerous times.

You dont need to get married to commit to fidelity and stability, if you get married to someone you already commited to fidelity for a long time and most couple who get married have some kind of stability most of them already live together and some even have kids and a familly before they get married. Cheating is cheating no matter is you married or not the only difference is if you cheat when your married its just a bigger mess and will cost you more. Marriage will not stop people from cheating humans are just not made to spend the rest of their live with the same partner. All you do is gamble half of what you own on your relationship.


Ive also repeatedly said Im for equallity and against discrimination, not allowing gay people to get married just because the person they want to married is the same sex than them is discrimination and they should have the same right than straight people to make this bad lifestyle decision.

If I have a significant other in Brazil and desire to continue our relationship in the US, marriage would be necessary (or at least facilitate) bringing them to the US and granting them a US citizenship. If I'm also not mistaken, there are some tax benefits to being a married couple in the US. It's also a symbolism of settling down with a person you most love. For all those reasons, I would like to get married in the future.

But I'm not spending a buttload of cash on a party. Nooooo way.

Also, concerning the disadvantages of marriage, you might be interested in an online movement, MGTOW, or, Men Going on Their Own Way. While it has degraded becoming cult-y and ideological, the message is interesting to consider. MGTOW folk criticize issues on male inequality like alimony, disadvantages in divorces courts, suicide rates, among others. While I do not affiliate myself with them, they still might have something to say and think about.

The tax thing go with what I said earlier that some people get married for financial reason. Your right, getting married can help someone move to your country and with the technology that keep making it easier to communicate with anyone around the world it will happen more often that people from different countries fall in love. Ive said before that anyone should be able to go live in another country if they want to and it should be easier to immigrate to another country.

There are some inequality towards the man when it comes to the divorce. After a quick look to the MGTOW website they seem more like an anti-feminist group than anything else.

Posts merged. Use the multi quote button next time. ~Mars

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 12:48 AM
Here comes the Wonder of 3rd Millennium

Vlerchan
August 1st, 2016, 05:17 AM
What Judean Zealot said.

It also lends itself to greater relational-stability (Econ Protip: incentives matter), which in turn creates a better environment for investment in children, other life-goals, and the transferring of property-deeds.

There is also a number of macro-reasons a society should encourage monogamous marriage.

[...] humans are just not made to spend the rest of their live with the same partner.
Hmm.

MGTOW, or, Men Going on Their Own Way.
First thing I read,
Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality In Crisis.
No thanks.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 08:31 AM
I agree with Judean Zealot and Vlerchan on this one.

Marriage lends itself to greater relationship stability. That in turn leads to greater success rates for their children and a greater bond between the parents. I see no real cons to marriage, all your claims are just generalizations and exaggerations.

The tax thing go with what I said earlier that some people get married for financial reason. Your right, getting married can help someone move to your country and with the technology that keep making it easier to communicate with anyone around the world it will happen more often that people from different countries fall in love. Ive said before that anyone should be able to go live in another country if they want to and it should be easier to immigrate to another country.
That is a very naive view of the world right there. Immigration doesn't work that way and very few people marry just for money. One of the reasons you get tax breaks as a married couple is because you will likely live in and use the same items, and that you will likely have children, which will cost you money. That seems pretty fair.

There are some inequality towards the man when it comes to the divorce. After a quick look to the MGTOW website they seem more like an anti-feminist group than anything else.

I am anti-feminist as well. Look at some of their rhetoric some time. They are basically calling for a female ruled Earth. Men do have the disadvantage in a lot of places. The white, straight male is often thought of as the most oppressed group when it comes to college admissions and discrimination. I still believe that the man should be the head of the house, and I disagree with feminist values.

[...] humans are just not made to spend the rest of their live with the same partner.

Please support this. Do you support polygamy? It sounds like you do.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 09:25 AM
I agree with Judean Zealot and Vlerchan on this one.

Marriage lends itself to greater relationship stability. That in turn leads to greater success rates for their children and a greater bond between the parents. I see no real cons to marriage, all your claims are just generalizations and exaggerations.

very few people marry just for money. One of the reasons you get tax breaks as a married couple is because you will likely live in and use the same items, and that you will likely have children, which will cost you money. That seems pretty fair.

Like I said earlier when you get married you already had some kind of stability. Some people do get married only for money, but when I said financial reason I meant people who love eachother and live together and only get married for financial advantages whether its tax breaks or other financial reasons. Whether your married or not if you have kids you will have tax breaks

I see no real cons to marriage, all your claims are just generalizations and exaggerations.

Really!? spending that much money on something with such a low success rate is kinda a con, it doesnt really stop infidelity the only difference being it more shit will it the fan if you do it while married, divorce is incredibly stressful and costly, talking about stress planning a wedding is very stressful, you dont need to be married to have sex or kids, involving money and the law in a relationship is most of the time a source of conflict and why would you need a piece of paper to prove your love and fidelity?

That is a very naive view of the world right there. Immigration doesn't work that way and very few people marry just for money. One of the reasons you get tax breaks as a married couple is because you will likely live in and use the same items, and that you will likely have children, which will cost you money. That seems pretty fair.



I am anti-feminist as well. Look at some of their rhetoric some time. They are basically calling for a female ruled Earth. Men do have the disadvantage in a lot of places. The white, straight male is often thought of as the most oppressed group when it comes to college admissions and discrimination. I still believe that the man should be the head of the house, and I disagree with feminist values.


How immigration should work and whether or not feminism is a good thing are other debates that arent related to this if you want to talk about it start a new one I will gladly participate

Please support this. Do you support polygamy? It sounds like you do.

I meant biologically we arent made to stay with the same partner for our entire live. What do you mean by polygamy?

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 12:24 PM
I want to get married but not because of religious reasons but because of the sharing everything and the belief that you will be together for ever ya know?

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 01:00 PM
I want to get married but not because of religious reasons but because of the sharing everything and the belief that you will be together for ever ya know?

Just going to city hall sign the paper marriage or big mother fucking party that will cost you thousands of dollards?

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 01:03 PM
Just going to city hall sign the paper marriage or big mother fucking party that will cost you thousands of dollards?
I am happy with either but if I know women, I'll be having the big mother fucking party with no choice in the matter :D

Microcosm
August 1st, 2016, 01:03 PM
Different people commit to love differently. OP, do you oppose formal marriage? That's the vibe I'm getting, but I just want to clarify. As a side note, I'll define marriage as both the religious and irreligious forms, all encompassed by the term "marriage."

Marriage isn't necessary, but it encourages commitment for people which is very helpful throughout life not only for sexual purposes, but also for economic stability as well as a stable support system for children. If parents live together and commit to each other, supporting their children is much easier and much more effective as the efforts of two almost always outweigh the efforts of one.

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 01:16 PM
Different people commit to love differently. OP, do you oppose formal marriage? That's the vibe I'm getting, but I just want to clarify. As a side note, I'll define marriage as both the religious and irreligious forms, all encompassed by the term "marriage."

Marriage isn't necessary, but it encourages commitment for people which is very helpful throughout life not only for sexual purposes, but also for economic stability as well as a stable support system for children. If parents live together and commit to each other, supporting their children is much easier and much more effective as the efforts of two almost always outweigh the efforts of one.
Yeah I agree with this like it's your wedding make it as religious as you want xD

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 01:31 PM
Different people commit to love differently. OP, do you oppose formal marriage? That's the vibe I'm getting, but I just want to clarify. As a side note, I'll define marriage as both the religious and irreligious forms, all encompassed by the term "marriage."

Marriage isn't necessary, but it encourages commitment for people which is very helpful throughout life not only for sexual purposes, but also for economic stability as well as a stable support system for children. If parents live together and commit to each other, supporting their children is much easier and much more effective as the efforts of two almost always outweigh the efforts of one.

Im oppose to me getting married, I think its useless, a waste of money and irrelevant in today's society and like I said earlier your gambling half of what you own on your relationship. People are allowed to make bad decision in live this is one.

People can live together and bring a stable enviroment and support their kid with out being married, most people who get married already live together some even have kids. And if your married or not when the relationship is over its over, marriage only throws more shit at the fan when it comes to seperation.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 01:52 PM
Marriage will not stop people from cheating humans are just not made to spend the rest of their live with the same partner.

I do pity the girl who ends up with you.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 02:01 PM
Im oppose to me getting married, I think its useless, a waste of money and irrelevant in today's society and like I said earlier your gambling half of what you own on your relationship. People are allowed to make bad decision in live this is one.

People can live together and bring a stable enviroment and support their kid with out being married, most people who get married already live together some even have kids. And if your married or not when the relationship is over its over, marriage only throws more shit at the fan when it comes to seperation.

No one forces you to marry. If you don't want to spend the rest of your life with someone you love, feel free to live alone, bouncing from one relationship to another, never satisfied. Because that is exactly what you sound like doing.

I don't think you get the idea that people can have successful and happy lives with one spouse all of their life. Real life isn't like TV or actors, most people live happily with their spouse through thick and thin. When you get married, no one forces you to put all your savings with your spouse, that is a personal choice. If you trust and truly love your spouse, and wish the best for your children, then you normally do. But marriage does not automatically mean you lose half your belongings.

Again, generalizations. People can live together without being married, but marriage adds that extra bond, that extra commitment that keeps the couple together through the hard times. If you have a kid, married or not, you can't just separate, it gets pretty complicated there.

I don't see the point of your thread here. It seems like you just don't like marriage, but all your points are just generalizations or exaggerations. People do live happily with one spouse, people generally don't marry for money, most people don't feel the need to hop between relationships, many people do save sex for marriage, and have it only with their spouse, people don't have to spend thousands for marriages, only 2% of marriages have divorces. If you think you can't handle marriage, don't get married. If you can't love another person enough to live with them forever, then please go hop between woman and woman. I feel sorry for the girl that truly loves you, as you can't return that. But the pros outweigh the cons.

Porpoise101
August 1st, 2016, 02:39 PM
Marriage is relevant because families are still relevant. Humans are social, you need to live with others eventually. And in most cases, people like to live with those they love. Marriage makes this whole system recognized culturally, religiously, and legally. You don't need to have a wedding by the way. It can also be smaller as well. No one forces the engaged parties to throw multi-day parties inviting hundreds of family members that they don't even know. In fact, I personally see that as kind of a waste.

Microcosm
August 1st, 2016, 03:29 PM
Im oppose to me getting married, I think its useless, a waste of money and irrelevant in today's society and like I said earlier your gambling half of what you own on your relationship. People are allowed to make bad decision in live this is one.

People can live together and bring a stable enviroment and support their kid with out being married, most people who get married already live together some even have kids. And if your married or not when the relationship is over its over, marriage only throws more shit at the fan when it comes to seperation.

What about people that aren't so promiscuous and who stick to a commitment with one person for their whole lives? Are they "gambling"? It's pretty simple: Have real feelings, know your partner, and don't cheat. You can form a mutually beneficial relationship that way.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 04:28 PM
Marriage is relevant because families are still relevant. Humans are social, you need to live with others eventually. And in most cases, people like to live with those they love. Marriage makes this whole system recognized culturally, religiously, and legally. You don't need to have a wedding by the way. It can also be smaller as well. No one forces the engaged parties to throw multi-day parties inviting hundreds of family members that they don't even know. In fact, I personally see that as kind of a waste.

Marriage and families, a family by definition is 2 parents with one or more kid living together, unrelated to whether or not the parents are married. If a couple is getting married they most likely already living together.

What about people that aren't so promiscuous and who stick to a commitment with one person for their whole lives? Are they "gambling"? It's pretty simple: Have real feelings, know your partner, and don't cheat. You can form a mutually beneficial relationship that way.

All relationships will end and when you get married your gambling half of what you own on that one of you die before you get sick of each other.

Porpoise101
August 1st, 2016, 04:44 PM
Marriage and families, a family by definition is 2 parents with one or more kid living together, unrelated to whether or not the parents are married. If a couple is getting married they most likely already living together.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Yes, if they are getting married they are probably living together. But this arrangement isn't necessarily recognized legally or in the religious or ethnic community the couple lives in. So marraige is used to cement this living arrangement into those institutions.

Typhlosion
August 1st, 2016, 04:45 PM
The tax thing go with what I said earlier that some people get married for financial reason. Your right, getting married can help someone move to your country and with the technology that keep making it easier to communicate with anyone around the world it will happen more often that people from different countries fall in love. Ive said before that anyone should be able to go live in another country if they want to and it should be easier to immigrate to another country.


That is a very naive view of the world right there. Immigration doesn't work that way and very few people marry just for money. One of the reasons you get tax breaks as a married couple is because you will likely live in and use the same items, and that you will likely have children, which will cost you money. That seems pretty fair.


That's... actually how it works. See the K-1 visa (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/family/fiance-k-1.html).

I am anti-feminist as well. Look at some of their rhetoric some time. They are basically calling for a female ruled Earth. Men do have the disadvantage in a lot of places. The white, straight male is often thought of as the most oppressed group when it comes to college admissions and discrimination.

Off-topic I suppose, but I agree that feminism is a huge problem nowadays.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 05:07 PM
That's... actually how it works. See the K-1 visa (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/family/fiance-k-1.html).


You are right of course, but I was referring to MattSmith's other statement regarding how we shouldn't restrict immigration and open our borders to everyone. That is not how immigration works.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 05:13 PM
Marriage and families, a family by definition is 2 parents with one or more kid living together, unrelated to whether or not the parents are married. If a couple is getting married they most likely already living together.

That's a generalization, and for most marriages that I know, the couples were not living together before marriage, and very rarely do they have kids before marriage.
All relationships will end and when you get married your gambling half of what you own on that one of you die before you get sick of each other.
You don't seem to understand that two people can love each other so much that they want to spend the rest of their lives with each other. Not everybody is as promiscuous and afraid of commitment like you are. You are never going to have a successful relationship with that attitude.

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 05:20 PM
That's a generalization, and for most marriages that I know, the couples were not living together before marriage, and very rarely do they have kids before marriage.


That might be true in the bible belt but where I am from, I have not seen one marriage where they wasn't married beforehand. I know loads of people that have had children before marriage too! Without religion weighing people down they're free to do what they want. Living together before marriage makes sense.

Microcosm
August 1st, 2016, 05:24 PM
All relationships will end and when you get married your gambling half of what you own on that one of you die before you get sick of each other.


This is objectively false if you're talking about while they're still alive.

What inspired you to make this thread?

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 05:27 PM
That might be true in the bible belt but where I am from, I have not seen one marriage where they wasn't married beforehand. I know loads of people that have had children before marriage too! Without religion weighing people down they're free to do what they want. Living together before marriage makes sense.

Its called patience and self-control, but I do admit that the way marriages are arranged vary from place to place. Still, MattSmith keeps acting like every single couple does it, which is entirely false.



What inspired you to make this thread?
I was thinking exactly the same. mattsmith48 please explain the purpose of this thread?

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 05:34 PM
Its called patience and self-control, but I do admit that the way marriages are arranged vary from place to place. Still, MattSmith keeps acting like every single couple does it, which is entirely false.

Why have self control? If you have no religious reason then people can sleep with whoever they want, whenever they want! Also I am a massive believer in moving in before getting married but yeah if matt is saying that, he is wrong. But I doubt he is saying that tbh.

Vlerchan
August 1st, 2016, 05:38 PM
Why have self control? If you have no religious reason then people can sleep with whoever they want, whenever they want!
Why can nothing have value?

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 05:48 PM
Why can nothing have value?
I have no idea xD Why can nothing have value?

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 07:35 PM
I don't know what you are trying to say. Yes, if they are getting married they are probably living together. But this arrangement isn't necessarily recognized legally or in the religious or ethnic community the couple lives in. So marraige is used to cement this living arrangement into those institutions.

A union can legally be recognize without getting married, people who are getting married are already having sex before marriage so they dont really care more than that about pissing of their God. What do you mean by ethnic community?

That's a generalization, and for most marriages that I know, the couples were not living together before marriage, and very rarely do they have kids before marriage.

You live in the most religious part of North America, when you go elsewhere its mostly not like that.

You don't seem to understand that two people can love each other so much that they want to spend the rest of their lives with each other. Not everybody is as promiscuous and afraid of commitment like you are. You are never going to have a successful relationship with that attitude.

I do understand two people can love each other and want to spend the rest of their live together, I have no fear of commitment and my current relationship is going fine. I just dont see why people still get married and I think it as lost his relevancy.


What inspired you to make this thread?

Buddy's mom is getting married and I was wondering why do people still get married.

Vlerchan
August 1st, 2016, 07:38 PM
I just dont see why people still get married[.]
I actually did offer reasons in my first post and none of them are sentimental.

If you missed them, they're here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3406725&postcount=6).

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 07:55 PM
What Judean Zealot said.

It also lends itself to greater relational-stability (Econ Protip: incentives matter), which in turn creates a better environment for investment in children, other life-goals, and the transferring of property-deeds.

There is also a number of macro-reasons a society should encourage monogamous marriage.


Hmm.


First thing I read,
Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality In Crisis.
No thanks.

And I already answered to the kids thing with this:
People can live together and bring a stable enviroment and support their kid with out being married, most people who get married already live together some even have kids. And if your married or not when the relationship is over its over, marriage only throws more shit at the fan when it comes to seperation.

What other live goals are you talking about? How does being married facilitate the transferring of property-deeds?

I actually did offer reasons in my first post and none of them are sentimental.

If you missed them, they're here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3406725&postcount=6).
I didnt missed it I was just distracted that you were agreeing with me on MGTOW being and anti-feminist group

Vlerchan
August 1st, 2016, 08:00 PM
People can live together and bring a stable enviroment and support their kid with out being married, most people who get married already live together some even have kids. And if your married or not when the relationship is over its over, marriage only throws more shit at the fan when it comes to seperation.
To perhaps put it in clearer terms, higher exit costs from a relationship act as a disincentive to ending it. The fact that divorcing imposing large costs on both spouses, encourages sacrifice and reconciliation.

(Both of which are qualities we should probably encourage, period).

What other live goals are you talking about? How does being married facilitate the transferring of property-deeds?
Self-employment is a life-goal which is made easier when one is in a stable relationship and has a legitimate fall-back option, amongst others.

With family deeds, it offers a clear line of descent.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 08:09 PM
mattsmith48 Your answers to all these questions have just been assumptions and exaggerations. I still don't think you understand that people actually want to spend the rest of their life with each other. The Bible talks of marriage as two becoming one, and for many people that is what marriage is. They don't have to worry about separation, because they know they have the one. Your response about the kids failed to acknowledge anything Vlerchan said, you seem to be too stuck in your ways to change.

What other live goals are you talking about? How does being married facilitate the transferring of property-deeds?

In the eyes of the government, a married couple is almost like a singular person in some regards. Married couples get a lot of leniency towards these kinds of things because of that.

I am still curious of why you think humans aren't meant to have a singular spouse or sexual partner through their life.

The fact that divorcing imposing large costs on both spouses, encourages sacrifice and reconciliation.

(Both of which are qualities we should probably encourage, period).


Good advice. Through trials and hard times, a couple can become much closer. If only more people would realize that instead of divorcing when things get tough. Be able to keep your vows or don't get married.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 08:12 PM
To perhaps put it in clearer terms, higher exit costs from a relationship act as a disincentive to ending it. The fact that divorcing imposing large costs on both spouses, encourages sacrifice and reconciliation.

(Both of which are qualities we should probably encourage, period).

Having a kid is already a disincentive from ending the relationship, its still a stable enviroment for the child if the parents arent married it will take more to end that relationship because of the kid.

Self-employment is a life-goal which is made easier when one is in a stable relationship and has a legitimate fall-back option, amongst others.

The only advantage of being self-employed when your married is if you fail it will take more for the other person to leave you because since you lost your job divorce will cost them more.

With family deeds, it offers a clear line of descent.

Still dont what your talking about or how marriage facilitate it

Vlerchan
August 1st, 2016, 08:22 PM
Having a kid is already a disincentive from ending the relationship, its still a stable enviroment for the child if the parents arent married it will take more to end that relationship because of the kid.
In others - the point I made is being accepted. That children might act as another disincentive to split is irrelevant. Getting married does better regardless because it ties ones personal welfare to the relationship and not just their childs.

The only advantage of being self-employed when your married is if you fail it will take more for the other person to leave you because since you lost your job divorce will cost them more.
The point I'm making is that there is higher costs to exist. There's also less of an incentive to walk out on a losing situation - in general - when exit results in something bleaker.

Still dont what your talking about or how marriage facilitate it
I'll just drop it since its not as important an argument as the others.

Porpoise101
August 1st, 2016, 08:22 PM
A union can legally be recognize without getting married, people who are getting married are already having sex before marriage so they dont really care more than that about pissing of their God. What do you mean by ethnic community?
Ok I think you are beginning to understand. People who get married are celebrating that union you speak of. As for the statement you made about people not 'holding off until marriage', I would disagree. People have always been promiscuous, just nowadays people are more open about it. But some people have always been very dedicated towards their beliefs. You cannot just say "they are probably having sex". They might be. But they also might not be. Lastly, marriage is also a cultural institution. They are ways for communities to renew their bonds and become stronger. For example, Indian weddings act almost as family reunions (and unions because the two families meet) because they often invite the entire extended family and everyone gets to see each other and get in touch.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 08:25 PM
Ok I think you are beginning to understand. People who get married are celebrating that union you speak of. As for the statement you made about people not 'holding off until marriage', I would disagree. People have always been promiscuous, just nowadays people are more open about it. But some people have always been very dedicated towards their beliefs. You cannot just say "they are probably having sex". They might be. But they also might not be. Lastly, marriage is also a cultural institution. They are ways for communities to renew their bonds and become stronger. For example, Indian weddings act almost as family reunions (and unions because the two families meet) because they often invite the entire extended family and everyone gets to see each other and get in touch.

Italian weddings are admirable in that respect as well.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 08:27 PM
mattsmith48 Your answers to all these questions have just been assumptions and exaggerations. I still don't think you understand that people actually want to spend the rest of their life with each other. The Bible talks of marriage as two becoming one, and for many people that is what marriage is. They don't have to worry about separation, because they know they have the one. Your response about the kids failed to acknowledge anything Vlerchan said, you seem to be too stuck in your ways to change.

What assumptions and exaggerations? I do understand that people actually want to spend the rest of their life with each other, why marriage as to be a part of it? How do you know the person your marrying is ''the one''?

In the eyes of the government, a married couple is almost like a singular person in some regards. Married couples get a lot of leniency towards these kinds of things because of that.

A union can legally be recognize without getting married

I am still curious of why you think humans aren't meant to have a singular spouse or sexual partner through their life.


Humans are just not biologically made to be with the same partner for their entire live

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 08:29 PM
mattsmith48, What you are talking about are "Animals" not "Humans". Biology has little to do with Ethics. Do not mix them up.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 08:31 PM
SCIENCE! triumphs again, so cheat on your significant other.

Millennials, you gotta love 'em.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 08:37 PM
mattsmith48, What you are talking about are "Animals" not "Humans". Biology has little to do with Ethics. Do not mix them up.

Humans are animals how is this even related to anything on here?

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 08:39 PM
Humans are just not biologically made to be with the same partner for their entire live
I think I disagree with this buddy! Humans are complex and many do want one partner for the rest of their lives and they do exactly that!

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 08:39 PM
By the way, folks, this is the natural result of reading Dawkins. Say no and stay in school, kids.

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 08:42 PM
Humans are animals how is this even related to anything on here?

Calling human animal is like calling plant algae.

Humans are descendants of animals inheritting their physics and bodies from them. In ethics, humans have few in common with them.

Regular humans, ethically are made for Monogamous marriage.

By the way, folks, this is the natural result of reading Dawkins. Say no and stay in school, kids.


Ah Dawkins! That man seriously is on my nerves!

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 08:46 PM
I think I disagree with this buddy! Humans are complex and many do want one partner for the rest of their lives and they do exactly that!

we try to stay with the same partner for the rest of our lives because society tell us its what we should do but biologically we are not made to only have one partner thats why so many people cheat, thats why less and less people are getting married and the ones who do get married do it later in live

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 08:47 PM
By the way, folks, this is the natural result of reading Dawkins. Say no and stay in school, kids.
Richard Dawkins? What's wrong with him?

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 08:50 PM
Richard Dawkins? What's wrong with him?

That he's an insufferably smug fool?

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 08:52 PM
we try to stay with the same partner for the rest of our lives because society tell us its what we should do but biologically we are not made to only have one partner thats why so many people cheat, thats why less and less people are getting married and the ones who do get married do it later in live

You do know that numerous animals have monogamous relationships? They mate for life unless one died. Humans are not animals, but even if we were, that is no support for removing monogamy.

People cheat because they want pleasure, has nothing to do with species survival or whatever nonsense you are reading. People murder because of pleasure, people rape because of pleasure. Pleasure should not dictate our lives and culture.

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 08:53 PM
we try to stay with the same partner for the rest of our lives because society tell us its what we should do but biologically we are not made to only have one partner thats why so many people cheat, thats why less and less people are getting married and the ones who do get married do it later in live
Interesting ideas:') I have read a report of a study that suggests men naturally get the urge to cheat overtime however I did not real the actual study and of the report exaggerates and misleads for clicks. I personally want to have one partner for life and tbh I don't care what makes me want thatXD It is a very interesting discussion though:P

Calling human animal is like calling plant algae.

A human is an animal XD Like that's a fact:P
That he's an insufferably smug fool?
Most famous people are XD Least he's not a Kardashian!
Humans are not animals,
This is starting to trigger me XD

Porpoise101
August 1st, 2016, 08:54 PM
Italian weddings are admirable in that respect as well.
Ahh its nice to see everyone, but nowadays many have grown out of proportion. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for decorations, food, ceremony, locations, etc. People are putting themselves into serious debt, and considering that dowries are still common in India, it really strains the bride's family. For these reasons, as well as cultural reasons, my father's family does not solicit or give dowry.

When/If I get married, it probably won't involve several hundred guests. But who knows? That time is far from now.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 08:58 PM
By the way, folks, this is the natural result of reading Dawkins. Say no and stay in school, kids.

Ive never read Dawkins, I eared its great tho

Calling human animal is like calling plant algae.

Humans are descendants of animals inheritting their physics and bodies from them. In ethics, humans have few in common with them.

Actually its the opposite algae are plants

Humans are the same than animals, we are not starting that debate again.

Regular humans, ethically are made for Monogamous marriage.

How?

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 09:00 PM
Ahh its nice to see everyone, but nowadays many have grown out of proportion. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for decorations, food, ceremony, locations, etc. People are putting themselves into serious debt, and considering that dowries are still common in India, it really strains the bride's family. For these reasons, as well as cultural reasons, my father's family does not solicit or give dowry.

When/If I get married, it probably won't involve several hundred guests. But who knows? That time is far from now.

When/if I get married, I'm certainly not wanting a big wedding. Maybe some close family and the church I go to offers free facilities for weddings. I don't really want an elaborate wedding. But in weddings, like in marriage, the woman calls all the shots. Hopefully I'm smart enough to marry to someone with either a lot of cash, or some common sense, though I don't know which I prefer:P.

But yea, marriages don't have to be these $20,000 spectacles you see some people do.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 09:01 PM
Interesting ideas:') I have read a report of a study that suggests men naturally get the urge to cheat overtime however I did not real the actual study and of the report exaggerates and misleads for clicks. I personally want to have one partner for life and tbh I don't care what makes me want thatXD It is a very interesting discussion though:P

Read one on this a few months ago Ill try to find it back.

A human is an animal XD Like that's a fact:P


This is starting to trigger me XD

Thank you!

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 09:01 PM
Ahh its nice to see everyone, but nowadays many have grown out of proportion. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for decorations, food, ceremony, locations, etc. People are putting themselves into serious debt, and considering that dowries are still common in India, it really strains the bride's family. For these reasons, as well as cultural reasons, my father's family does not solicit or give dowry.

When/If I get married, it probably won't involve several hundred guests. But who knows? That time is far from now.

We still have dowries, although my family will likely only take a token sum. But yes, I do agree that destination weddings and whatever other extravagances are popular should not lead to irresponsible financial behaviour.

In our circles though, the girl's family foots just about the entire bill, so I don't have much to worry about.

Porpoise101
August 1st, 2016, 09:04 PM
Actually its the opposite algae are plants

Humans are the same than animals, we are not starting that debate again.
Actually you are both wrong... Of the three algae groups, only green algae is in the kingdom Plantae. The other two are in the kingdom Protista. Wooo thank you biology!! :metal::metal:

Anyways, I think he is trying to say that humans are different because we constructed a set of social rules and ideals to live by. These constrain and guide our actions to form societies.

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 09:10 PM
Actually you are both wrong... Of the three algae groups, only green algae is in the kingdom Plantae. The other two are in the kingdom Protista. Wooo thank you biology!! :metal::metal:

Anyways, I think he is trying to say that humans are different because we constructed a set of social rules and ideals to live by. These constrain and guide our actions to form societies.

There I said it. You got the point.

Besides Green Algae is the loop between Protistae and Plantae. There are significant traits which seperate it from Kingdom Plantae and Kingdom Protistae.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 09:10 PM
Actually you are both wrong... Of the three algae groups, only green algae is in the kingdom Plantae. The other two are in the kingdom Protista. Wooo thank you biology!! :metal::metal:

Your right.

Anyways, I think he is trying to say that humans are different because we constructed a set of social rules and ideals to live by. These constrain and guide our actions to form societies.

Thats only proves humans have a greater intelligence than other species.

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 09:14 PM
Anyways, I think he is trying to say that humans are different because we constructed a set of social rules and ideals to live by. These constrain and guide our actions to form societies.
That is true but that doesn't mean that we do things sub-consciously because that is how we have evolved ya know? Like why we see faces everywhere :) I don't like social rules forcing me to marry or be monogamous or whatever but I personally want to. Some people don't. I don't see the big deal tbh?

Porpoise101
August 1st, 2016, 09:15 PM
Thats only proves humans have a greater intelligence than other species.
Is that not a difference between man and beasts?

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2016, 09:21 PM
Is that not a difference between man and beasts?

Not really some animals are more intelligent than others but they are still animals we just end up being the most intelligent animal on this planet

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 09:25 PM
Is that not a difference between man and beasts?
Loving how you use the word beast instead of animalXD Instead you describe a dangerous animal. So I suppose the only difference between man and beasts is that beasts are dangerous animals whereas we're just animals.

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 09:27 PM
Not really some animals are more intelligent than others but they are still animals we just end up being the most intelligent animal on this planet

The difference is that animals intelligence differs like D2O and H2O, while human intelligence is like comparing Element O to Element He.

I hope there is no Chemist here.

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 09:46 PM
The difference is that animals intelligence differs like D2O and H2O, while human intelligence is like comparing Element O to Element He.

I hope there is no Chemist here.
Do you study chemistry? Did you know D20 is heavy water? Not being a dick, I am genuinely interested! Don't think there is anyone else on here that likes science XD

Why can't you compare oxygen to helium? They have quarks and electrons and strong interaction forces etc etc. Just because something seems very different on the outside, doesn't mean they cannot be compared?

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 09:49 PM
I would say a more accurate analogy of the relation between human and animal intelligence is the difference between the element of hydrogen and the element of surprise: while they may share a name, they are of entirely separate natures.

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 09:55 PM
Do you study chemistry? Did you know D20 is heavy water? Not being a dick, I am genuinely interested! Don't think there is anyone else on here that likes science XD

Why can't you compare oxygen to helium? They have quarks and electrons and strong interaction forces etc etc. Just because something seems very different on the outside, doesn't mean they cannot be compared?

What I was trying to say was that animal intelligence varries as Isotopes of a same element varry, while human intelligence differs as two completely different elements differ.

Oxygen: A damn crazy reactionist
Helium: Who cares you want to react? ME? GET THE HELL OUT OF MY FACE!
Judean Zealot, Let us just say Tear appeared in my eye reading your comparing. Bravo

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 09:58 PM
What I was trying to say was that animal intelligence varries as Isotopes varry, while human intelligence differs as two completely different elements differ.

Oxygen: A damn crazy reactionist
Helium: Who cares you want to react? ME? GET THE HELL OUT OF MY FACE!
Dudeee humans are animals! They are in the kingdom animalia so they are a animal.

Oxygen is a very crazy reactionst :D:D:D -
I am we have another chemist on VT!!

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 10:07 PM
Dudeee humans are animals! They are in the kingdom animalia so they are a animal.


Comparing the intelligence of humans to animals is like comparing a lightbulb to a computer. Both run off electricity, but one is far superior.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 10:09 PM
Now that we're on the subject, I wrote up a post on here that I'm very proud of around 4 months ago on the difference between animal intelligence and ours. It began when someone challenged me on a statement I made that animals have no thought akin to ours. below is a copy paste.

---------

I'm sorry to do this to you, but I'm going to answer with broad strokes, because in this response there are many distinct discussions that can take up an entire thread each. So I'll lay out the general form of my response, and you direct the dialogue to the aspect(s) you wish to focus on.


The first point I'd like to address is the correlation between language and ideas, specifically that language is a necessary condition to proper intellection. I would posit, as does (http://m.oxfordscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/0199246297.001.0001/acprof-9780199246298-chapter-11) Donald Davidson, that to begin, we must distinguish between cognizance of stimuli or patterns and apprehension of the conceptual nature of something. To illustrate what we're going to argue out, a dog might see his owner and get excited, yet the dog's perception of the owner is only in terms of the stimuli associated with his owner's presence, be it food, shelter, or whatever other feeling the owner gives the dog. Thus the dog definitely can be said to think, in the sense that it can make associations between sensual stimuli. However, the dog cannot, in principle, conceptualise his owner in the sense of apprehending the owner's being, as not only the source of stimuli, but as a set of variable aspects and relations, such as 'the man who is the father of his children', or 'the man who is a banker during the day', or 'the man who bought me in the pet shop'. The dog sees the owner not as man, with all the qualities thereof, but as a two dimensional being which produces certain stimuli. This is what we are setting out to prove: that an animal cannot possibly apprehend the world in any meaningful way.


Now, the most fundamental element of thought is the capacity for belief, the consciousness of affairs being in state X as opposed to state Y or Z. Even thoughts of desire falls under this principle, for a being can't conceptually desire object A without first believing that A is in state {XYZ} as opposed to existing merely as a possibility, or not existing at all. Thus a conception of belief is necessary for thought.


Furthermore, this capacity of belief requires language to exist, for belief is essentially the consideration that affairs are in state X and not in state Y. The italicised converse is crucial to the belief in question if the thought is to have any sugnificance, because if the converse weren't explicit in the thought, the thought would not exist, for want of a contrast. Yet that which is being negated in the converse statement, being untrue, exists merely in the form of a linguistic proposition, that affairs are in state Y. Thus recognise the distinction between true and false propositions (belief), one must be capable of linguistically formulating the rejected proposition, which requires language.


The next step this leads to is the question of whether animals have language, in the sense that would allow them to meaningfully formulate alternatives to belief. We should begin by quickly mentioning the four Popperian functions of language, to avoid the confusion that so frequently arises from the various implications of the word. Note: as I am getting tired I have simply copy pasted an account of Popper from a blog I frequent. Source (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/buhler-buhler.html?m=1).


1. The expressive function, which involves the outward expression of an inner state. Here language operates in a way comparable to the sound an engine makes when it is revved up, or an animal’s cry when in pain.

2. The signaling function, which adds to the expressive function the generation of a reaction in others. Popper compares it to the danger signals an animal might send out in order to alert other animals, and to the way a traffic light signals the possible presence of cars even when there are none about.

3. The descriptive function, which involves the expression of a proposition, something that can be either true or false. The paradigm here would be the utterance of a declarative sentence, such as “Roses are red,” “Two and two make four,” or “There is a predator in the area.” Notice that the latter example differs from an animal’s cry of warning in having a conceptual structure. A bird’s squawk might cause another bird to feel fear and take flight. What it does not do is convey an abstract concept like eagle, predator, or danger, and thus it does not convey the sort of propositional content that presupposes such concepts.

4. The argumentative function, which involves the expression of an inference from one or more propositions to another in a manner than can be said to be either valid or invalid, as when we reason from All men are mortal and Socrates is a man to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal.


Now, I don't think I have to explain that when Davidson requires language for thought, he refers specifically to the latter two functions of language. These functions are radically different than the first functions, and the ability of animals to marshal those functions is in no way an indicator of capability to employ the other functions. Indeed, our observations overwhelmingly point to the conclusion that animals are in fact incapable of functions 3 and 4. Noam Chomsky would agree (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/2007----.htm).


To put Davidson's argument formally:
1) Thought requires a capacity for belief.
2) Belief requires linguistics.
3) Animals do not have language.
:. Animals cannot have thought.

-------

The fact that animals display grief at death in no way indicates that they understand the significance of death, only the deprivation of their source of positive stimuli. Similarly, the social norms displayed by chimps is not a reflection of morality so much as a simple inherited trait spurred on by survival of the fittest. Perhaps at some future point they will evolve into sentient creatures, but until then they occupy a lower rung as far as function is concerned.

Source thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2026873)

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 10:10 PM
Comparing humans to animals is like comparing a lightbulb to a computer. Both run off electricity, but one is far superior.
Nooo comparing humans to animals is like comparing a cow to an animal or a pig to an animal. 'Cos ya know they're all animals? Humans belong to the kingdom animalia so by definition, we're animals.

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 10:14 PM
Mimikyu, Since I have already said that Biology is science, and what we are talking about here is Ethics....

Let us agree to disagree.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 10:14 PM
Nooo comparing humans to animals is like comparing a cow to an animal or a pig to an animal. 'Cos ya know they're all animals? Humans belong to the kingdom animalia so by definition, we're animals.

The human body, yes. The human intellect, no.

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 10:20 PM
@Mimikyu (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060), Since I have already said that Biology is science, and what we are talking about here is Ethics....

Let us agree to disagree.
Nooo that is not what you asked Jack! Animals do not have the same ethics as humans! You said humans wasn't animals.
The human body, yes. The human intellect, no.
The human intersect that has evolved over millions of years from a fish? Do you know what actually goes on in your mind? Neurones and ions carrying charges to make up your concious and sub-concious mind.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 10:23 PM
Mimikyu

It was in anticipation of this that I went and dug up my old post on the difference between human and animal intellect. That's my defence.

Leprous
August 1st, 2016, 10:24 PM
The human body, yes. The human intellect, no.

Humans act according to instincts. So do animals don't they. Humans have lusts, desires, so do animals don't they? Humans will do everything to survive, so do animals don't they? Humans give birth and like mamals, their mothers give them milk. How do we think differntly? Please tell me.

Porpoise101
August 1st, 2016, 10:26 PM
Loving how you use the word beast instead of animalXD Instead you describe a dangerous animal. So I suppose the only difference between man and beasts is that beasts are dangerous animals whereas we're just animals.
I used the word 'beast' because it means animal. It also sounds cooler and more classier than just the word 'animal'. Writing the word 'animal' over and over again makes writing more repetitive and poor stylistically when you are discussing animals on a thread about marriage.

Aside from that, yes humans are animals biologically. But humans do not act like them. They do not rely solely on instincts. They do more than just input information from the senses, they also create and interpret information. Essentially, you guys are saying 'let's follow our instincts!' I disagree because rules make us special. Rules make our society. The fact that mankind has collectively decided to caste away the instinct-only approach to a lifestyle that blends rules and instincts show that we don't live in the same way at all. Rules prevent people from doing what they 'feel' is right and establish order and what we deem to 'know' is right. The fact that we inhabit an artificial world created by our species makes us different (not necessarily superior). It makes us different because animals inhabit a world given to them, humans inhabit a world constructed by humans.

Since our ways of life are so fundamentally different, we should not apply animal-sense to human issues unless it is relevant, like medicine. It doesn't make sense to try to compare the way a naked mole rat lives to a nuclear family in the USA.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 10:27 PM
The human intersect that has evolved over millions of years from a fish? Do you know what actually goes on in your mind? Neurones and ions carrying charges to make up your concious and sub-concious mind.

This is getting silly. You tell me of a beast that can even begin to consider the abstract or its place in the universe and I might consider your opinion.

Here is a definition of beast BTW: "an animal as opposed to a human."

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 10:29 PM
Humans act according to instincts. So do animals don't they. Humans have lusts, desires, so do animals don't they? Humans will do everything to survive, so do animals don't they? Humans give birth and like mamals, their mothers give them milk. How do we think differntly? Please tell me.

We act according to instinct, yes. We also act according to reason - something animals don't do. If you want more detail it is laid out in tremendous detail above.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 1st, 2016, 10:33 PM
We act according to instinct, yes. We also act according to reason - something animals don't do. If you want more detail it is laid out in tremendous detail above.

This is so simple! Why can't you guys understand this! Humanity is far beyond the beasts of the Earth mentally, this is common sense! You aren't wild animals, despite what you may think.

Leprous
August 1st, 2016, 10:40 PM
This is so simple! Why can't you guys understand this! Humanity is far beyond the beasts of the Earth mentally, this is common sense! You aren't wild animals, despite what you may think.

Judean Zealot And what about the others? Do animals not share those things with us? Everything I just mentioned?

Also, there are monkey breeds reaching the stone age, does that mean they are not animals either because they are evolving? It is their instinct to use tools, just like ours.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 10:44 PM
Judean Zealot And what about the others? Do animals not share those things with us? Everything I just mentioned?

Also, there are monkey breeds reaching the stone age, does that mean they are not animals either because they are evolving? It is their instinct to use tools, just like ours.

Whether they're evolving or not is irrelevant, currently they're brute beasts, and we're intelligent humans. Will they evolve into humans? highly doubtful, but what difference does that make?

I mean surely you aren't saying that humans are algae because that was the first form life took, right?

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 10:44 PM
Judean Zealot And what about the others? Do animals not share those things with us? Everything I just mentioned?

Also, there are monkey breeds reaching the stone age, does that mean they are not animals either because they are evolving? It is their instinct to use tools, just like ours.

I wonder if they also have philosophy subjects in their Tree classes and mystics rising from their ranks.

Leprous
August 1st, 2016, 10:46 PM
Whether they're evolving or not is irrelevant, currently they're brute beasts, and we're intelligent humans. Will they evolve into humans? highly doubtful, but what difference does that make?

I mean surely you aren't saying that humans are algae because that was the first form life took, right?

Actually humans are the most brutal and destructive species on the planet. I don't see how we are any better than them. They don't kill people for their skygod they never met.

I never said that, what I did say is that humans are just like animals and in NO WAY superior.

Ghaem I wonder if that has anything to do with being human. Actually define being human for me.

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 10:50 PM
I used the word 'beast' because it means animal. It also sounds cooler and more classier than just the word 'animal'. Writing the word 'animal' over and over again makes writing more repetitive and poor stylistically when you are discussing animals on a thread about marriage.
Nooo beast means a dangerous animal. Would you call a pig a beast? Dudeee you can sound as fancy as you wantXD Jack has a small vocab sooo I will just stick to the words I know XD

But humans do not act like them. They do not rely solely on instincts. They do more than just input information from the senses, they also create and interpret information
You know some animals use tools?
http://www.livescience.com/9761-10-animals-tools.html
Also on a recent biology trip of mine the ecologist was saying how this small rodent leaves small piles of rocks or other markings so they can find their way back when they're off looking for food however I can't remember the animal or find anything on google to support it.
Essentially, you guys are saying 'let's follow our instincts!' I disagree because rules make us special. Rules make our society. The fact that mankind has collectively decided to caste away the instinct-only approach to a lifestyle that blends rules and instincts show that we don't live in the same way at all. Rules prevent people from doing what they 'feel' is right and establish order and what we deem to 'know' is right. The fact that we inhabit an artificial world created by our species makes us different (not necessarily superior). It makes us different because animals inhabit a world given to them, humans inhabit a world constructed by humans.
Yeah I agree we need rules in our society. I think we have gone well off topic with all this animal crap.
The question is should we have rules governing our sex life? I think no as long as everyone is concenting, nobody is getting hurt!

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 10:51 PM
Actually humans are the most brutal and destructive species on the planet. I don't see how we are any better than them. They don't kill people for their skygod they never met.

I never said that, what I did say is that humans are just like animals and in NO WAY superior.

Ghaem I wonder if that has anything to do with being human. Actually define being human for me.

You're descending into unintelligibility. I'm saying we have developed our intellects to the extent that we can comprehend in a radically different manner, and as such occupy an entirely distinct niche in the hierarchy of things. How do the existence of wars in any way intersect with that?

The superiority of humans lies not in what they do, but in what they can do.

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 10:53 PM
Ghaem I wonder if that has anything to do with being human. Actually define being human for me.

Being a human means living your life trying to UNDERSTAND where you are where you will be and that your existence is not accidental and it surely has a reason. This is the difference between humans and animals. They do not give a damn attention about such matters. Animals just go on with eating, sleeping, mating and dying. Humans are not the same.

Leprous
August 1st, 2016, 10:57 PM
You're descending into unintelligibility. I'm saying we have developed our intellects to the extent that we can comprehend in a radically different manner, and as such occupy an entirely distinct niche in the hierarchy of things. How do the existence of wars in any way intersect with that?

The superiority of humans lies not in what they do, but in what they can do.

But who says other species won't be capable of these things in the future? What humans can do is ruin a planet and I don't see that as superior. Basicly we are destroying our own species, we should atleast realise we are not a superior being of insane power who should be above everything else.

Ghaem Humans also eat sleep mate and die. Like other species don't they? Being able to think doesn't instantly makes you a different species, it makes you smart. Not changes the species you belong to.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 11:00 PM
But who says other species won't be capable of these things in the future? What humans can do is ruin a planet and I don't see that as superior. Basicly we are destroying our own species, we should atleast realise we are not a superior being of insane power who should be above everything else.

Nobody does, but until then there is a clear distinction between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Are you insinuating that all humans know how to do is ruin the planet? Because otherwise what you're saying is entirely irrelevant to my post.

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 11:03 PM
The Special One, That s definitely why I used the word "Just" right? Just means they only do those things, nothing more than their body matters. Humans are not smart comparing to animals, they are intelligent. This is a relative phrase. Monkeys might be smart comparing to other animals, but humans are intelligent comparing to monkeys.

Leprous
August 1st, 2016, 11:03 PM
Nobody does, but until then there is a clear distinction between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Are you insinuating that all humans know how to do is ruin the planet? Because otherwise what you're saying is entirely irrelevant to my post.

Isn't it human nature to only look forward in a straight line not caring about their surroundings? Because that is what most of them are doing.

The clear distinction here is what's in the brain. The way you think doesn't make you a different species. Animals are a group based on their body, the way they look and function, aren't we like all other mamals?

Also, if a dog thinks different than a cat, does that make dogs superior and no animals?
Ghaem So what you said is that we are like monkeys? In that case we are animals according to you.

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 11:05 PM
Guyssssss as much fun as debating animals and the meaning of life is... can we get back to the topic of whether or not sex out side of marriage is okay and marriages place in the modern world.

I will state what I think so someone can quote me disagreeing and we can get this debate going.

Jack thinks that if you want consensual sex and you're of legal age then you should go do that and have fun! Orgy with 100 men and 100 women? You do you boo! If you want to wait until marriage you do that! We should not be forcing our lifestyle choices on other people!:)

Uniquemind
August 2nd, 2016, 02:37 AM
In response to the post above I believe in living honestly.

If you lean toward hedonism, then you do you, just limit the consequences of your actions to yourself and those who consent to do the same with you.


If you lean more toward a sense of order or purpose especially in a spiritual or religious sense, then you've taken it upon yourself to act and become a certain way.


I believe if you have to suppress something, then really your sinning because you are living a lie and by default defeat the purpose, so live honestly.

mutantboy
August 2nd, 2016, 05:20 AM
Why do people still get married today? People used to do it because religion was telling them they had to be married to have sex and make children. Now most religious people dont really give shit what their God or Gods think. They almost all masturbate and have premarital sex, even catholic priest do it, people dont give a shit if you live together or have a kid and your not married. I know some people get married because its a good thing for them financially, beside that I dont see why people still get married today or want to get married in the future, why spend that much money on a wedding espacially with a low success rate it and how much a divorce will cost you I dont see why they want to take that chance. What you guys think? Why do people still get married today? Is marriage still relevant today?

Don't forget the civil marriage, that is basically a contract, and it is a different thing. You are talking about religious marriage only.

Porpoise101
August 2nd, 2016, 09:56 AM
I think no as long as everyone is consenting, nobody is getting hurt!
What about the spread of disease? What about unintended pregnancy? Look, these issues are often magnified with promiscuity. Marriage is a tool that limits the consequences of these problems.

Flapjack
August 2nd, 2016, 10:02 AM
What about the spread of disease? What about unintended pregnancy? Look, these issues are often magnified with promiscuity. Marriage is a tool that limits the consequences of these problems.
Well thankfully we have condoms :D I know you might live in this religious bubble but where I'm from, everyone is having sex and it is all good!:)

Porpoise101
August 2nd, 2016, 10:11 AM
Well thankfully we have condoms :D I know you might live in this religious bubble but where I'm from, everyone is having sex and it is all good!:)
Yes, contraception is good. I don't live in a religious bubble either, the amount of people who share my religious beliefs in my area I could count on my hands. Unlike most, I'm kind of forced to interact with other people who are not like me. And yes, it is the same situation here with people having sex. That in itself is not terrible. But when people just hook up when they are under the influence, not thinking about the consequences, it is bad. If not marriage to keep people in check, there should be a way to make sure everyone at least considers their futures.

Flapjack
August 2nd, 2016, 10:15 AM
Unlike most, I'm kind of forced to interact with other people who are not like me.
That is literally every person ever xD How many people like me do you think there are in the world? Not manyyy and none of them live near me :P

But when people just hook up when they are under the influence, not thinking about the consequences, it is bad.

Yeah that is stupid so what we should ban alcohol? I say we give people the freedom to do whatever that want and educate them of the risks:)

Leprous
August 2nd, 2016, 10:30 AM
Yes, contraception is good. I don't live in a religious bubble either, the amount of people who share my religious beliefs in my area I could count on my hands. Unlike most, I'm kind of forced to interact with other people who are not like me. And yes, it is the same situation here with people having sex. That in itself is not terrible. But when people just hook up when they are under the influence, not thinking about the consequences, it is bad. If not marriage to keep people in check, there should be a way to make sure everyone at least considers their futures.

So we should band whatever half of P101 is doing weekly?

Porpoise101
August 2nd, 2016, 10:31 AM
That is literally every person ever xD How many people like me do you think there are in the world? Not manyyy and none of them live near me :P
Do people in your community look like you? Do you share the same religious beliefs? Do you share the same ethnic background? Do you share similar ideals? I for one, do not. I don't know about you.

Anyways, I agree with what you say. If you ban it, you will just end up with dumber people. Since this problem is unsolvable without a totalitarian police state, I say that the best way to reduce risk is to educate people about it.

Nevertheless, I don't get what this has to do with marriage anyways.

Uniquemind
August 2nd, 2016, 10:52 AM
Yes, contraception is good. I don't live in a religious bubble either, the amount of people who share my religious beliefs in my area I could count on my hands. Unlike most, I'm kind of forced to interact with other people who are not like me. And yes, it is the same situation here with people having sex. That in itself is not terrible. But when people just hook up when they are under the influence, not thinking about the consequences, it is bad. If not marriage to keep people in check, there should be a way to make sure everyone at least considers their futures.

The consequences can be bad yes. Their consequence is potential disease, infertility, early pregnancy and or death, but that is their choice.

My only answer to your post is that an institution of marriage doesn't really act as a force to keep people in check sexually anymore.

Let's also discuss the reason why, one being our generation has witnessed some nasty divorces of friends parents, uncles and aunts, and our own parents. Our generation distrusts "marriage" as an effective family tool.

Instead we are looking at the details of what makes a stable healthy relationship, and then stack the label of marriage on top of that OR couples just shun marriage, and a small minority few just live promiscuously.

Porpoise101
August 2nd, 2016, 11:31 AM
My only answer to your post is that an institution of marriage doesn't really act as a force to keep people in check sexually anymore.

Let's also discuss the reason why, one being our generation has witnessed some nasty divorces of friends parents, uncles and aunts, and our own parents. Our generation distrusts "marriage" as an effective family tool.
Marriage was never a check. People have always had extramarital affairs, the difference was that it was shameful and that privacy was abound. This meant that it was concealed, and that people could hide it easier. And if that didn't work out, the person who 'strayed' would be able to just go back into their domicile marriage for stability.

As for the divorces, this is just a Western phenomenon for the most part. The majority of the world's people do not have this issue (though they do have others). That being said, there should be a way for people to have a 'fallback', which is what marriage served as. Marriage allowed people to be there to support each other, and be forced to do so in a way. This way people could solve issues together and get through tough times. In no way was it perfect, and in many cases it was not very good at improving the quality of life of people. Marriage did help out our ancestors a lot. Because of that, I think that we need something at least similar to marriage to have some sort of accountability between couples.

mattsmith48
August 2nd, 2016, 11:59 AM
Don't forget the civil marriage, that is basically a contract, and it is a different thing. You are talking about religious marriage only.

Civil marriage is the same than religious marriage they are both contract only difference is one is between the couple and the goverment, the other is between the couple and their God/Gods.

Yes, contraception is good. I don't live in a religious bubble either, the amount of people who share my religious beliefs in my area I could count on my hands. Unlike most, I'm kind of forced to interact with other people who are not like me. And yes, it is the same situation here with people having sex. That in itself is not terrible. But when people just hook up when they are under the influence, not thinking about the consequences, it is bad. If not marriage to keep people in check, there should be a way to make sure everyone at least considers their futures.

Marriage is not keeping people from cheating, you said it yourself people dont think of the consequences when under the influence, but also when sober some people just think with their genitals before thinking with their brain.

Ragle
August 2nd, 2016, 12:05 PM
To me marriage is obsolet. My parents got married when I was born. But that time they had already two boys. According to mom they married just because it brought any tax or similar advantages.

In addition, a church guy once said: In his church you're married, if you promise someone to live with her or him. And if the promise is reciprocated, both are married. Even if only God is witness.

If marriage is that simple I wonder why it's so complicated in everydays life.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 2nd, 2016, 12:19 PM
Well, I don't think the problem is marriage, but the fact that so many people are abusing marital rights. Previous generations actually respected marriage, now a days people are so driven by their hormones that they marry the closest person they want to have sex with. Our society is encouraging that, the "follow your heart" which for most people means "follow the sex." The system of marriage is not flawed in that the people getting married today are not looking to follow it.

Flapjack
August 2nd, 2016, 02:08 PM
Well, I don't think the problem is marriage, but the fact that so many people are abusing marital rights. Previous generations actually respected marriage, now a days people are so driven by their hormones that they marry the closest person they want to have sex with. Our society is encouraging that, the "follow your heart" which for most people means "follow the sex." The system of marriage is not flawed in that the people getting married today are not looking to follow it.
I don't think many people are getting married and making lifelong commitments because of their desire for sex. We live in a free country and they can do that without even being in a relationship.

Vlerchan
August 2nd, 2016, 04:08 PM
Let's also discuss the reason why, one being our generation has witnessed some nasty divorces of friends parents, uncles and aunts, and our own parents. Our generation distrusts "marriage" as an effective family tool.
This doesn't demonstrate a thing about marriage because there is no control for it to be seen as effective, vis-á-vis, so we are all aware.

Nooo comparing humans to animals is like comparing a cow to an animal or a pig to an animal. 'Cos ya know they're all animals? Humans belong to the kingdom animalia so by definition, we're animals.
The issue is that mattsmith48 is using that we might be animals to then proceed to claim that cheating is natural. Which is a non-sequitur.

In our circles though, the girl's family foots just about the entire bill, so I don't have much to worry about.
This isn't the case in Ireland, but my girlfriend's family is old-fashioned and feels it is there responsibility to foot most of the bill. I have been told by my own family that I'm not to accept a penny of their money though, not that I needed to be told, regardless.

Porpoise101:

Dowries aren't a thing here either.

I also plan on having a small wedding, with few invites. I imagine I will shell out big for a nice, long honeymoon, though.

Previous generations actually respected marriage, now a days people are so driven by their hormones that they marry the closest person they want to have sex with.
Colour me highly sceptical. Our generation is highly sceptical of there being any value in marraige, if anything.

(Though, it might be different where you live, and premartial sex is looked down upon [one of the reasons I don't feel we should absolutely scorn premartial sex]).

Flapjack
August 2nd, 2016, 04:12 PM
The issue is that mattsmith48 is using that we might be animals to then proceed to claim that cheating is natural. Which is a non-sequitur.

Yeahhh that is stupid XD There are monogamous animals and polygamous animalsxD I just love how people's response to that is nooo humans aren't animals xD

Vlerchan
August 2nd, 2016, 04:14 PM
I just love how people's response to that is nooo humans aren't animals xD
Well, I think people are trying to highlight that there is qualitative differences between animals and humans.

I don't really care about that whole debate, though. Everyone generalisation from animal to human is usually wrong, regardless.

Flapjack
August 2nd, 2016, 04:15 PM
Everyone generalisation from animal to human is usually wrong, regardless.
How do you mean?:)

Vlerchan
August 2nd, 2016, 04:19 PM
How do you mean?:)
Claiming that, because animals do something, it is correct for humans to engage in it - or inevitable, is almost always incorrect.

Flapjack
August 2nd, 2016, 04:21 PM
Claiming that, because animals do something, it is correct for humans to engage in it - or inevitable, is almost always incorrect.
Of course xD

Porpoise101
August 2nd, 2016, 04:39 PM
Porpoise101:

Dowries aren't a thing here either.
I wouldn't expect there to be any. It's a practice that has largely died out in the West, but is still very common in Asia. That being said, my Indian family still doesn't partake in the practice because they are more.. matriarchal.

Anyways, I did some research and came across an interesting fact: Since there are so many males in China (because of selection), males pay dowry to the female's family. This was actually not traditional, but happened indirectly due to the One Child Policy.

Uniquemind
August 2nd, 2016, 05:55 PM
To me marriage is obsolet. My parents got married when I was born. But that time they had already two boys. According to mom they married just because it brought any tax or similar advantages.

In addition, a church guy once said: In his church you're married, if you promise someone to live with her or him. And if the promise is reciprocated, both are married. Even if only God is witness.

If marriage is that simple I wonder why it's so complicated in everydays life.

I think your specific church guy is wrong, within a religious context he should know that his view clashes directly with the "women at the well" verse of Christian scripture.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 2nd, 2016, 08:25 PM
mattsmith48 I have a question for your regarding your views of marriage.

You keep stating the obvious falsehood that no one can stay permanently in a relationship, and that everything would be better if people were given flexibility for relationships. Regardless of that, my question is about your views on plural marriage and polygamy. Do you think that is better than monogamy?

mattsmith48
August 2nd, 2016, 09:13 PM
mattsmith48 I have a question for your regarding your views of marriage.

You keep stating the obvious falsehood that no one can stay permanently in a relationship, and that everything would be better if people were given flexibility for relationships. Regardless of that, my question is about your views on plural marriage and polygamy. Do you think that is better than monogamy?

If you look at the cultures and religion who recognize and allowed polygamy mostly dont see women as an equal to men as an example Islam. Marrying multiple women is a legal way in Muslim countries to have sex slaves. The other religion that is well known for allowing polygamy is the Mormon religion in which the founder Joseph Smith wanted to fuck other women than his wife and thats why its part of the mormon religion. So no its not better than a single marriage because polygamy is base on having a legal way in the eyes of your God/Gods to fuck more than one women. Since its not taboo anymore for two people to have sex without being married if you really want to be with multiple men or women or both at the same time dont get married.

Stronk Serb
August 2nd, 2016, 09:21 PM
Why do people have kids? Commit to them and stuff? Why do we socialize and make friends? Because we want to. If you want to commit to someone both legally and share life's burdens, marriage is one way, being formal or religious.

Uniquemind
August 2nd, 2016, 11:43 PM
If you look at the cultures and religion who recognize and allowed polygamy mostly dont see women as an equal to men as an example Islam. Marrying multiple women is a legal way in Muslim countries to have sex slaves. The other religion that is well known for allowing polygamy is the Mormon religion in which the founder Joseph Smith wanted to fuck other women than his wife and thats why its part of the mormon religion. So no its not better than a single marriage because polygamy is base on having a legal way in the eyes of your God/Gods to fuck more than one women. Since its not taboo anymore for two people to have sex without being married if you really want to be with multiple men or women or both at the same time dont get married.

On that note I'd just like to say that I have some Mormon friends and from an outsider's point of view, they have some of the best solid and stable family units I've seen.

Ghaem
August 3rd, 2016, 02:10 PM
I do simply feel that World has gone mad. Very soon this Ethic Chaos will lead to a Social Chaos which not even mighty Experts of Law and Sociology and Psychology cannot stop it. I say let it happen, but I am damn sure I do not want any of this madness comming inside here. So have fun!

Ragle
August 3rd, 2016, 02:23 PM
I think your specific church guy is wrong, within a religious context he should know that his view clashes directly with the "women at the well" verse of Christian scripture.

The "specific churchman" is dean of the Old (or New, Modern? idk) Lutheran Church in our region. So I guess he's Christian too and I don't think he's wrong if it comes to the stuff of his church.

But I admit I don't understand much of those ecclesial perspectives. Because my family is recruited from members of four different religions, and my parents aren't such religious folks, I wasn't brought up religiously much to the chagrin of my grandparents. Also I decided I'm an atheist ... or at least something like that. But I liked the interpretation of that priest, so I recite it, as I've understood it.

Uniquemind
August 3rd, 2016, 02:34 PM
The "specific churchman" is dean of the Old (or New, Modern? idk) Lutheran Church in our region. So I guess he's Christian too and I don't think he's wrong if it comes to the stuff of his church.

But I admit I don't understand much of those ecclesial perspectives. Because my family is recruited from members of four different religions, and my parents aren't such religious folks, I wasn't brought up religiously much to the chagrin of my grandparents. Also I decided I'm an atheist ... or at least something like that. But I liked the interpretation of that priest, so I recite it, as I've understood it.

You believe what you want you are entitled to your opinion.

I just disagree with his interpretation on it based on scripture itself and other core messages in it, and I really give little reverence to job titles, if your wrong I'll point it out and expect a strong rebuttal appropriate for the context.

candorgen
August 3rd, 2016, 06:35 PM
mattsmith48

Without integrating quickly into what's been said already in the thread, I don't see much of a positive reason of why people shouldn't marry ('positive' as in a reason for something, rather than 'negative as in a lack of a reason for something).

mattsmith48
August 3rd, 2016, 08:54 PM
mattsmith48

Without integrating quickly into what's been said already in the thread, I don't see much of a positive reason of why people shouldn't marry ('positive' as in a reason for something, rather than 'negative as in a lack of a reason for something).

Its cheaper, easier to get out off the relationship when its over, and you lose less when its over. Marriage doesnt prevent infidelity, you can have sex and kids and live together with out being married no one gives a shit anymore if you do, and after you lived together for a certain amount of time your union can be legally recognized and you will recieved the some of the same rights than married couple, the rights you get varies depending on where you live.

candorgen
August 4th, 2016, 08:32 AM
Its cheaper, easier to get out off the relationship when its over, and you lose less when its over.

I thought there were economic advantages to being married. I don't see how it is easier to get out of a marriage, than if it is just a relationship without marriage. What do you mean by 'losing less'?



Marriage doesnt prevent infidelity[...]

No, but I would imagine that it is some 'non-zero' motivator against infidelity.



[...]you can have sex and kids and live together with out being married no one gives a shit anymore if you do[...]

Yes, a family can be brought up without marriage, and it isn't shunned, but it doesn't mean it's a reason to not marry.



[...]and after you lived together for a certain amount of time your union can be legally recognized and you will recieved the some of the same rights than married couple, the rights you get varies depending on where you live.

Some of the same rights as being married, not all.

mattsmith48
August 4th, 2016, 11:25 AM
I thought there were economic advantages to being married. I don't see how it is easier to get out of a marriage, than if it is just a relationship without marriage. What do you mean by 'losing less'?


They are some economic advantages to being married but they are also some economic advantages to not getting married. I said its easier to get out of a relationship with out being married. Being married makes it more difficult to get out of the relationship because of that I think a couple that isnt married because the relationship can end so suddently will work harder on their relationship to preserve it and to keep the other person happy. Losing less it just mean when the relationship ends if not married your not obligated to slip everything you own between you two.

No, but I would imagine that it is some 'non-zero' motivator against infidelity.

What do you mean by this

Yes, a family can be brought up without marriage, and it isn't shunned, but it doesn't mean it's a reason to not marry.

But wanting or having a family is not a reason to get married, when it comes to having a family marriage as become irrevelant.


Some of the same rights as being married, not all.

Most of the rights they dont get are when it comes to seperation

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 4th, 2016, 12:32 PM
mattsmith48 You seem to fail to see what everyone else is saying. All your claims are about separation, something that less than half of total marriages actually do. Not everyone is like you and believe that humans can't live with one partner. On that, while I don't believe in evolution, most scientists do say that humans evolved to be monogamous.

How does marriage hurt the couple that is living a happy life together, and how does it help. I am not talking about separation, but marriage.

Flapjack
August 4th, 2016, 12:34 PM
MattSmith do you not actually like marriage? Or do you just see it as not necessary? :)

mattsmith48
August 4th, 2016, 12:44 PM
MattSmith do you not actually like marriage? Or do you just see it as not necessary? :)

I see it as unnecessary and irrelevant

Flapjack
August 4th, 2016, 12:46 PM
I see it as unnecessary and irrelevant
Technically it is unnecessary but to many it is a necessary step in becoming a family ya know?:) I also don't see it as irrelevant as so many people value it so much:)

Ragle
August 4th, 2016, 02:19 PM
You believe what you want you are entitled to your opinion.

I just disagree with his interpretation on it based on scripture itself and other core messages in it, and I really give little reverence to job titles, if your wrong I'll point it out and expect a strong rebuttal appropriate for the context.

I can't discuss fundamental believings about the interpretation of any scripts in context of the statement of this priest I mentioned. Because, as I said before, I wasn't brought up in any religion contexts. I just cited what that churchman said once, because I liked this statement.


But I think, if the statement of this man reflects the belief of his church, the statement itself can't be wrong.

So it isn't correct just in your opinion, because the said statement perhaps behaves contrary to the context of your religion, in which you were brought up. idk.

Therefore, there can't be any right or wrong opinions. Even I think religious debates are interesting, I rather find'em also irrelevant, because the folks usually argue in circles..

candorgen
August 4th, 2016, 04:54 PM
They are some economic advantages to being married but they are also some economic advantages to not getting married.

What are some of these advantages? Do you mean having freedom to move your moneys around without consulting your other half?



I said its easier to get out of a relationship with out being married. Being married makes it more difficult to get out of the relationship because of that I think a couple that isnt married because the relationship can end so suddently will work harder on their relationship to preserve it and to keep the other person happy. Losing less it just mean when the relationship ends if not married your not obligated to slip everything you own between you two.

Sure, it's easier to end a relationship when you're not already married, but if you're taking into consideration this minority situation of thinking of divorcing as an important factor, then there isn't much point in marrying in the first place. I mean that as in those who see marriage with a real possibility of divorce, don't have to get married. Those who don't consider divorce can marry without this factor, it doesn't add to your point.



What do you mean by this

That one is less motivated to engage in infidelity if one is married; even knowing of the consequences of being found out are a good deterrent.



But wanting or having a family is not a reason to get married, when it comes to having a family marriage as become irrevelant.

There is the economic advantages that go with marriage. Also, many people want to marry because they want to participate in a symbolic public union with another person, because they believe in it and/or some ideas behind it. Living/practicing some symbolism is a powerful thing.



Most of the rights they dont get are when it comes to seperation

Then it sort of evens out what you were saying about divorce.


Overall, I'm totally not against people doing their thing without marriage in whatever form, but I don't understand your view of it being an obsolete practice.