(Untitled)

[marginalutility]

"Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners were left free to choose, the whole social fabric would fly asunder. You can't have the argument both ways. If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is

Comments

Love and Marriage

[anonymous]

Note the implied argument against gay marriage, as well. Anyway, more generally, between the poles of Marriage being an alleged 'spiritualization' of lust and a property arrangement, there is a constructive and instructive pro-Marriage rationalization. That would be based on the idea of recognition, namely that Marriage expresses public recognition of a relationship. Such recognition need not be a denigration of whatever is between the involved parties, but, rather, a celebratory propagation of the latter, with no imposition intended. Once again, a debate between demonizers and glorifiers only muddies the bathwater that carries a baby down the drain. EESenor

[nomoreheritage]

Eh. I'm as strictly opposed to marriage as any far-left liberal hardcore cynic who happens to be financially self-reliant, but even I have to admit this argument is not waterproof. There are lots of things that would make us happy if we did them, but we can't seem to overcome the temptations to not do them, or vice-versa. In fact, I would say that's the story of my life this winter. Marriage is bullshit for other reasons.

It kills the social life, for one. And it encourages religious institutions when really it's best to ignore them so that they'll go away. But seriously, tax breaks for married couples aren't just homophobic, they're discriminatory against single people. And on a slightly different vein, it's morally reprehensible for human doctors to refuse to tie a woman's tubes just because she's single and in her twenties. GRRRR THOSE JERKS

Who argues "Who argues that?"?

[anonymous]

You are right--you don't understand the argument. Its primary target is the internal incoherence of the position of 'sanctity' of marriage fanatics whose campaigns were obviously addressed to the libertines of Shaw's era, representing what was likely the societal norm in Victorian times. The fact that you might have a different defense of marriage is irrelevant, and if you have to ask who in current times argues that way, then you really aren't paying attention. EESenor

[anonymous]

"Meaningful limits","will power","encourages behavior", "to survive"? A lot of us have had enough of such Conservative Behaviorism. EESenor

[nomoreheritage]

Shut up. Explain me how our society benefits from more people getting legally married and making babies. Then I'll explain why that's ass-backwards and the words "population crisis" will be mentioned.

It can happen to the best of us ...

[anonymous]

In defense of the anonymitii, the journal and discussions are awesome and made me want to pipe in, at the risk that marginalutility may not take a kindly likin' to new penpals.

Anyway, is everyone here losing sight of the fact that George Bernard Shaw was married? I googled it!

Hypocrisy ... is only bad when it is improperly used. ;)

Re: It can happen to the best of us ...

[anonymous]

Read carefully before you level your charge--the target of Shaw's criticism is not Marriage per se, but its fanatical defenders. EESenor

Re: It can happen to the best of us ...

[marginalutility]

I only object to new penpals when they don't identify themselves--so please do so.