Is marriage natural or unnatural?

Post by **Winston** » April 25th, 2009, 5:53 am

Hi all,
I was wondering something. How do you all feel about the institution of marriage, which is inherently binding, commitment-oriented, and thus technically the antithesis of freedom?

Frankly, I've always felt that there was something "unnatural" about an artificial contract binding two people together for life. I mean, love itself should be enough for two people to be together, but why does it require a government contract to bind you for the rest of your life? It seems like being chained or imprisoned for life.

Yet you are supposed to want this, and taught that you are "incomplete" without it. It doesn't make sense and seems like madness to me.

Plus, marriage doesn't take into mind the reality that people change their mind and evolve in different directions, they are mutable not fixed, and therefore a union may not be forever. So in a sense, marriage is attempting to control human nature and resist change, which is totally unnatural of course. Isn't the key to success adapting to change?

Yet people are conditioned to want the lifetime commitment of marriage, and see it as a natural part of life, or else they will be unfulfilled. It's ironic and I don't get it. But most people buy into it.

Of course, I'm afraid to tell others this, especially people who are conservative, square, and follow the established order of things, because as you know, it's a "taboo thought" to think this way, even if it makes sense.

Furthermore, I think that to be locked to one person for life and have 3 billion other choices eliminated from your life for good, takes away all of the adventure, experiences, joy and variety in life. It would be like being forced to eat nothing but pepperoni pizza everyday for the rest of your life. At first it'll be good, but after a while you'll get tired of it, feel imprisoned for losing your freedom and choices, and lose out on all the other wonderful foods out there besides pepperoni pizza. That would be a sad tragedy.

Why am I so different than everyone? I often feel like I'm in a "Twilight Zone" and the only one that thinks for himself and doesn't follow the pack.

In Taiwan, where I am now, you are seen as incomplete if not married, for it considered one of the milestones of "normal life" that everyone follows.

Any thoughts or comments?

PS - I've noticed that the times I've wanted to be married the most were when I was desperately lonely. But when I'm not lonely, I see no need for it.

Mr S · Post by **Mr S** » April 25th, 2009, 6:27 am

I think marriage should be "leased" nowadays rather than permanent with a divorce option. I think I read somewhere that marriages need around 7 years to either break up or become more permanent. So why don't we just have marriages where they are good for 7 years and then after that time period the contract expires and the two people can either renew their vows for another 7 or go their separate ways? It seems most contracts have a shelf life on them, why not marriage as the days are long gone when people typically died before they reached the age of 40.

If there are kids involved then before the lease it would be determined beforehand who would have custody. If after the lease is up the couple does not want to remain together. I think this is a logical system but of course many people in government, law and other related businesses would never condone it as they make too much money through divorce, child custody, etc.

Like anything else in the world, people are different all over. However I believe most humans want stability and normalcy in their lives to a certain degree. This means that marriage works as a stabilizer for most people and the ones that cheat do it because the relationship/marriage provides the initial stability to find others to be with.

Most people would not consider the fact that one should not be in a long term relationship or marriage if they still want to mess around and date multiple partners. This goes against most cultural norms already established and people will consider one odd if they are somewhat honest about their proclivities.

I have no GF or wife because I know at the present moment in my life I could not commit to just one individual. I take oaths seriously and would think getting married just for the sake of it and then cheating on someone or wanting to get divorced is wrong in my eyes. Why marry someone when you are not a complete person yet or have not discovered if your partner is truly the one to be with for a considerable amount of time? I'm constantly evolving and who I am now I will not be 5 years from now. I do not think it is fair on any potential partner to expect to keep up with me, emotionally and intellectually. Most people when they reach a certain age they tend to remain stuck in their ways and thinking. Very few people continue truly progressing and changing. I'm part of the rare few who continue to change. If I were to get into a serious relationship with a woman in the future she would either have to be as dynamically adaptive as I am or have the ability to adapt to my changes. I have not discovered a woman who can do that.

I am in the Philippines, yes it is easy to date and find a long term relationship if one wants but most woman here cannot adapt to radical changes in a partners lifestyle or thinking patterns. They are very set in their ways and nonadaptive for the most part. Many people like this attribute however and this is why many foreigners are convinced that the local woman here make good Gf's and wives. I'd rather not string someone along thinking we are a couple when in fact I have no intention of developing anything further than a sexual relationship. Most people are too selfish to do this so they create the front of dating, GF/BF, wife/husband. I don't care that people think one is strange if they have are not married or had been previously married by their 30's. I consider it an accomplishment that I never got brainwashed into the whole system to begin with!

I'm not saying I would never get married, but it would have to be for a practical reason. Because of divorce laws there really is little incentive for a man to marry a woman from their own country. I would never marry an American woman, if I found one I couldn't live without I would just do the common law thing. I think the only way I would actually marry someone is if I met a foreign woman and I needed to officially marry her to retain residency in her country or bring her to the United States.

I have not found that person and thus I remain single and elusive towards any kind of long term commitment with a woman.

MatureDJ · Post by **MatureDJ** » April 25th, 2009, 8:16 am

Marriage is an artificial social construct meant to further the interests of society at large by having a common family structure that is most conducive to raising children. Left to their own devices, men would simply have sex with any attractive woman they could get their hands on. OTOH, women would strive to become partners only with the dominant male members of the community, even if that meant sharing such top men (i.e., hypergamous polygyny), or at least attempt to be impregnated by men who seemed to have the highest quality of genes (i.e., cuckold.) And because of the natural tendency of life to seek cross-pollination, women seek to be careful serial polyandrists as well (i.e., find one cool dominant man at a time to have a child with.)

Marriage, with its strongly enforced social mores against female infidelity especially, works alleviate these natural tendencies. Polygyny may be good for the men getting the action, but it has the inevitable consequence of leaving many men sexually frustrated. I think all of us here know the feeling of such sexual frustration. Having a lot of men sexually frustrated is definitely a negative for society (think of the shoot-em-up culture of the American West and suicide-for-72-virgins culture in Islam.) And long term marriage also has the benefit of active fathering in the family (think of the crime in fatherless inner city neighborhoods), as well as alleviate welfare for single mothers.

But of course, it is the modern woman (in the USA and elsewhere) that feels that the constraints of marraige limits her choices. With divorce and child support laws the way there are in the USA, a woman can be assured of having the financial support for her children, so her natural tendency to be hypergamous is realized by seeking to leave the marriage to have the chance at landing Superman.

Here is an excellent article (there are others at this site):

http://novaresources.blogspot.com/2009/ ... ating.html

gmm567 · Post by **gmm567** » April 25th, 2009, 10:13 am

I am not against marriage. But I am not interested in being f***ed over in the divorce courts.

momopi · Post by **momopi** » April 25th, 2009, 10:32 am

To be a husband is to love, protect, and provide for his wife and family.

Once children enters the scene, the needs of the child comes before your own. i.e. the baby cannot feed itself or change diapers. It's all up to you.

Men desire marriages because he can lay claim to his bride (represented by the ring today) and exclusive access to her sexually, and have children that are of his genes to carry his family name and title.

Is marriage natural? Looking back at human history, I'd say that it's definitely a social norm. If you're not interested in committing to a marriage, so be it -- it's a personal choice and not anyone else's business.

However, for those who are interested in marriage, my $0.02 is to find a marriage-quality women who'd be there when you're 90 years old to help you with your walker. This means, the women's personal character is more important than "hot legs". Many men marry beauty only to find that beauty is external, and what's inside is rotten.

Cyrus · Post by **Cyrus** » April 25th, 2009, 12:18 pm

Hey Winston,

Well I do agree with your points, but I think some people can be happy with marriage and some happy with polyamory their whole life, and both can work and provide contentment if done right.

If I had no intention of traveling around the world and experiencing life & adventure like you said, and I meet a woman who's: sweet, charming, sexy, fun, loyal, and caring. Well, I might be tempted to marry and I think I'd be happy. On the other hand, if the wife were self-serving, materialistic, and seeking image versus spirituality, then the marriage would suffer, and I would suffer, and i'd join the throes of guys who hate their lives (which is the MAJORITY of marriages)

So, unless you're going for marriage, then go with multiple less-serious girlfriends and have the freedom to pursue different people because it's a lot of fun.

PS: and if you hae kids you absolutely have to marry versus trying to explain to the children that they have more than one mommy or daddy.

Post by **Winston** » April 26th, 2009, 2:53 am

Here's something interesting.

http://nomarriage.com/reasons.html

NoMarriage.com

Give me ONE good reason why a man should sign a marriage contract with an American woman.
Give me one good reason why a man should sign the marriage contact with an American woman. With a foreign bride, I guess you need to sign the marriage contract so she can get her green card and move to the United States. Ok, fine.

But with an American woman, why not just live with her and f**k her. Verbally commit for life if you want.

The ONLY thing that signing that marriage contract will do is ensure that the man receives a solid ass raping in divorce court if the relationship doesn't work out. And since American-American marriages have a 60% divorce rate, that's a very real possibility.

As a man, what's in it for me?

Unless you are that dancer who married J-Lo of course.

Love.
>> Two people can love each other without the marriage contract.
** Doesn't feel like love in divorce court.
*** Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another.

Vowing that you have the faith and committment.
>> You can make that vow without the marriage contract.
** Right up to the time the guy doesn't make enough $$ to keep her happy (moving target!!)

And celebrating this with your friends and family.
>> That's gay.
** What, holidays aren't enough?

Health insurance.
>> Minor benefit. If both people are working, it's a non-issue. And the marriage penalty in taxes offsets this benefit.
** That's a bullshit reason for getting married.

Making it harder to abandon someone during the hard times.
>> That's only a benefit to a woman because women get preferential treatment in divorce court.
** May make it harder on the guy, but women are OK bolting any f***ing time. Especially the hard times.

Ensuring that the world and society views you and treats you as a team.
>> Why be a tool for society? Make your own decisions, and don't let society tell you how to live.
** Grow up already. Society doesn't give a rats ass about you or me.

I ask: why not if you sign a pre-nup?
>> Often, pre-nups expire after a certain amount of years. Plus, women now can contest pre-nups and essentially render them void. Pre-nups don't help at all in issues like who gets the kids, visitation rights, and child support.

Order noMarriage.com manual even if you disagree with the website. 62% divorce statistic is a FACT. 100% of divorced men wish they had purchased this book before proposing.

Back to NoMarriage.com

ladislav · Post by **ladislav** » April 26th, 2009, 6:50 am

Cyrus wrote:Hey Winston,

Well I do agree with your points, but I think some people can be happy with marriage and some happy with polyamory their whole life, and both can work and provide contentment if done right.

If I had no intention of traveling around the world and experiencing life & adventure like you said, and I meet a woman who's: sweet, charming, sexy, fun, loyal, and caring. Well, I might be tempted to marry and I think I'd be happy. On the other hand, if the wife were self-serving, materialistic, and seeking image versus spirituality, then the marriage would suffer, and I would suffer, and i'd join the throes of guys who hate their lives (which is the MAJORITY of marriages)

So, unless you're going for marriage, then go with multiple less-serious girlfriends and have the freedom to pursue different people because it's a lot of fun.

PS: and if you have kids you absolutely have to marry versus trying to explain to the children that they have more than one mommy or daddy.

Agreed on most points. Also, if you strategically arrange things in the right way, you can make sure that your polyamory serves the good of society.
Especially, if you are an unmarried mature guy, many women seek you out for support and advice. I do not mean American women, of course. Many 3d world women need guidance and protection, so you can become a 'patron' of sorts and a defender and a best friend of ladies, and not just a horny satyr using them. I have done that, and it is rewarding to you and to them. And it serves greater common good, too. In this, way your polyamory can be as socially responsible and beneficial as marriage, if not more. It is important to be a responsible world citizen. This way you can turn a 'perversion' into a positive social phenomenon. I have found that purely selfish pursuits never yield satisfying results. Everything you do has to be balanced with a degree of compassion and altruism.

If one has kids, marriage is desirable or, if you have enough money and time, at least a common law marriage arrangement as in most societies now, bastards are no longer stigmatized.

Island Bum · Post by **Island Bum** » April 28th, 2009, 9:35 am

I think that social pressures push us into marriage at a young age. Then the marriage produces children. 18 years later the kids are gone and, in many cases, there is no longer a need for the marriage to continue. However, by that time the guy has some assets and a vested pension, so divorce becomes an expensive option. Unfortunately, most guys then just sit through the rest of their lives in a dead marriage.

My dad used to say "too soon old, too late smart." That goes with the whole marriage thing. How many of us marry a bimbo just because she has nice tits or gives good head? Instead, we should have gone for the college grad with good salary potential, then the playing field would be more level. And, although one of the previous posts talks negatively about pre-nuptual agreements, a guy wanting to get out of a dead marriage is still much better off with a pre-nup than without one.

Now the real dumb ass is the guy who is 40+ who gets into a second marriage! Usually also to a younger bimbo with a much lower salary. And he usually is too cheap to pay a lawyer to draw up an air-tight pre-nup. This is the guy who is really asking for trouble if the second marriage goes bad.

Island Bum

Marco · Post by **Marco** » April 28th, 2009, 1:04 pm

Marriage is a social construct to raise children and help society when the children grows up properly but so far, the feminists in North America ruined that and now their offsprings are turning into thugs,drug users,single moms(to make more feral children), and crime. Overseas like the Philippines and other non-feminist dominated countries, it is still possible to get married, have a good housewife, and raise healthy children. That is why you Winston should support your son Angelo in any means possible even if you don't plan to marry Dianne.

Post by **Winston** » April 30th, 2009, 3:32 am

Great points everyone. What I don't get though, is why marriage can't just be a verbal contract. Why invoke the government in it? It makes no sense.

Here are some intellectual responses I got to this issue from the Zeitgeist forum:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joo ... &id=112063

momopi · Post by **momopi** » April 30th, 2009, 10:15 am

WWu777 wrote:Great points everyone. What I don't get though, is why marriage can't just be a verbal contract. Why invoke the government in it? It makes no sense.

Because it has legal and financial benefits/consequences.

i.e. a legally married couple can claim 500k in tax exemption upon sale of their primary residence, and $7 million USD in inheritance tax exclusions.

Post by **Winston** » May 2nd, 2009, 2:05 am

momopi wrote:
WWu777 wrote:Great points everyone. What I don't get though, is why marriage can't just be a verbal contract. Why invoke the government in it? It makes no sense.
Because it has legal and financial benefits/consequences.

i.e. a legally married couple can claim 500k in tax exemption upon sale of their primary residence, and $7 million USD in inheritance tax exclusions.

W: I don't think the majority of people who marry do so for tax breaks. They do so cause they think they love the person and want to settle down and cause their family and society conditioned them to do it or else they are incomplete.

momopi · Post by **momopi** » May 2nd, 2009, 11:54 am

WWu777 wrote:
momopi wrote:
WWu777 wrote:Great points everyone. What I don't get though, is why marriage can't just be a verbal contract. Why invoke the government in it? It makes no sense.
Because it has legal and financial benefits/consequences.

i.e. a legally married couple can claim 500k in tax exemption upon sale of their primary residence, and $7 million USD in inheritance tax exclusions.
W: I don't think the majority of people who marry do so for tax breaks. They do so cause they think they love the person and want to settle down and cause their family and society conditioned them to do it or else they are incomplete.

Your question was why marriage invokes the government. Tax codes and law = government.

If people could resolve their disputes without going to court, then we wouldn't need divorce courts. But that's not a realistic expectation.

Enishi · Post by **Enishi** » May 2nd, 2009, 6:30 pm

In some respects, I think life-long monogamy isn't fully in line with our basic programming. Especially when looking at various matriarchal tribes that still exist, it would seem that humans are more adapted to communal tribes where serial monogamy doesn't destabilize the basic functioning of the tribe. In that sense, the imposition of enforced monogamy and greater sexual restriction does tend to make people a bit more neurotic.

However, we are not merely animals. We also have the gift of free will and the ability to pursue higher moral ideals. Even if it could be argued that it was better if we all reverted to living in matriarchal tribes, that isn't how our society has been structured. Unless everyone agreed to change all at once, any society which does go "matriarchal" will eventually be conquered or subsumed by larger patriarchal societies. For that reason, some form of enforced monogamy will likely always be necessary in order to give a society stability and lay a foundation for future generations to prosper. Long term morality and ideals HAVE to come before immediate emotional and physical gratification.