Marriage is a sacred union recognised by law and the state…so I propose cheating on your husband/wife should be a criminal offence! If you are not committed…don’t get married
Marriage actually first began in early human tribes, practiced by the social elites and aristocrats. The common man, the pleb and peasant, actually had no access to the institution of marriage. Marriage, when it first began, was practiced and created by the top members of the tribe.
Today, this is a common misconception about marriage. Religion and State compete over the rite, right, and legality to control marriage. Because controlling marriage, is controlling sex. Controlling sex, is controlling children, population, and reproduction. The state only wants slaves to reproduce, because slaves serve the state. In Christianity, slaves to God are encouraged to marry, because Christian slaves serve their master, God. Marriage is imposed onto slaves.
The state and religion, both actually force slaves to marry each other, and reproduce, often against their will. In religion, this is accomplished by denying sex to young men through premarital sex. Men, and women, are both shamed if they have sex outside the marriage vow. Religions primarily use guilt and shame, as a method to force their flock to marry, before having sex. Some religions, such as Islam, even have harsher physical penalties, like death for committing adultery. This is the most obvious form of sexual control. Islam, like Christianity, controls sex.
The state takes the opposite route, and promotes sexual deviancy as a “rational alternative” to religious marriage. However, don’t be fooled, both state and religious marriage are intentionally created to force slaves to marry and reproduce, almost always against the will of the people marrying. This is why the divorce rates are so high, because, state and religion both force people to marry against their will. People have sex naturally, and marriage is unnecessary in this regard.
The state offers an “alternative lifestyle” marriage. Two men can marry. Two women can marry. This is the state’s version of a “normal family”. The state wants to compete against religion, directly, over control of the population’s sexuality and reproduction. The state is using the backdoor, by encouraging men to sodomize other men, and encouraging women to lay in bed with each other. The children are then spawned using artificial insemination through sperm donors and adoptees. In actuality, the state is promoting a bastard society of biologically fatherless children. The state promotes a “no father” society. The state then acts as its own God, a central male authority figure. This is represented by the democratically elected president, who changes every 4 or 8 years, true to bastardism.
With a bastard society, you never know who the “real father” is. There is no “real father”. There’s not supposed to be, with state powered marriage, as we currently have in the US. This is a symptom of the age we live in. We are coming to the end of the democratic era and style of governance. The “nanny state” is quickly approaching. After we have female presidents, the cultural paradigm will shift again into a new format. It will eventually become illegal to “be male” at all. Males are not welcome within society, unless they are emasculated, very low testosterone, and obediently follow the slave doctrines, dictates, mandates, of the state system.
The state has become the new religion. Communism succeeded, as Marx predicted in his Communist Manifesto. The truth is, sadly, the Russians actually “won” the Cold War. Communism won. And we’re seeing this today, the effects of it. The destruction of classical, religiously powered marriages, is something “outdated” and “not modern”. Liberals claim that religious marriage is “bad and evil”, like Islam. It belongs in the Middle East, not the united states, where everybody is “progressive” and postmodern.
Marriage has become a fashion statement.
However, the true essence of marriage, as practiced by the true cultural elites, remains fixed and permanent. The creators of the institution of marriage, still know and understand its true value. Marriage was never actually intended for the slave population. That is also why the divorce rate is so high. It is an imposition of a cultural system, one that forcibly enslaves the general population, into serving the state or religion.
As the power of state and religion wanes, in the US, we’ll see a vast fragmentation of western culture, giving rise to new sub-cultures and small ideological sects. We truly do live in the “New Age”, new era, new world order. New cultures will spawn as a result of this, offering their own, unique interpretations of classical marriage, both as a state function, religious symbol, and primordial form of sexual intimacy.
The queer movement is proof of this fact. I wouldn’t be surprised if people start having sex with animals, and adults start having sex with children next. It’s on the horizon. That is how decadent, hedonistic, and fallen from morals western society has become. Christians are correct in one sense, when they claim US is “the devil” or “satan incarnate”. It is, from their point of view. They have a legitimate argument there.
The liberals have come into power, are in power. But the liberal fascist is no laughing matter. I predict that liberalism will continue to dominate and rise in power throughout this century.
Oh bite me
rununder,
No idea what your actual position is on your ramble. You seem to espouse the “religious” view of morality and condemn it it at the same time. FTR, I disagree with most everything you put forward. Regardless, the label or what it societally stands for, marraige is simply a committment between two people, which isn’t anything new. Procreation is procreation and not some plot to produces more “slaves”. That such unions have been used and abused historically is well known and continues to this day. But the future looks a bit brighter when the discussion revolves around committment rather than “god says so”.
Yeah I think that post was more about master/slave stuff and political stuff and all than really about marriage. That’s the problem with all the isms. You can apply them to anything and go on and on about nothing.
Nothingisms?
Yes.
A related question…if Nietzsche’s wife were to emasculate him somehow, would he beat her?
Tough question… I can think of a few instances where that would be the logical conclusion of some of his statements, but I don’t think he would beat her, he would kill her (compassionately). On the otherhand, if he were a latent homosexual or bi, he might just give her thanks for freeing him from obligatory societal posturing - and then kill her (compassionately). Beatings are so wisywashy and no overman would stoop to half-way solutions in interpersonal relationships.
How’s that for bullshit? Do I get a prize?
Yes. You can beat your wife if you want.
Not much of a prize. I never bought the uber BS. I’m a bit on the feminist side. I take that back. I’m more interested in humans, it’s just that females tend to be more human than males. That, plus they smell better.
I side with the religious approach to marriage, as opposed to the state’s new encroachment into ethics and morality. There was already a time period in western history when cultural leaders dominated the state morality. It was called the Roman Empire. This is a recurring theme in history. For example, I do not believe that non chaste women should be allowed to marry. If a young woman is not a virgin, then I don’t believe she is deserving of marriage. Most people will immediately judge me and my position here, and call me a traditionalist, fundamentalist, conservative, religious person. But I’m not, in fact. I just have a unique and actually thought out position and rationale about marriage.
So my view is actually unique, and rare, unlike most other people’s cookie cutter ideas of morality.
Want proof? Of course you want proof, because people are skeptics and cynics. Let’s take Prince William and Kate Middleton. They are all over US national news. Why? Why are they so important? Why are they so influential to Americans, when, America is anti-monarchical? Does William and Kate believe they are entitled to royal treatment? It doesn’t matter, because, the United States pop culture and news media are treating them as royalty and furthermore, as if they were American Royalty. But, America is built on anti-aristocratic values.
This goes back to my original point, that, marriage was originally inspired by the top of the tribal hierarchy, in prehistoric humans. I’ve actually studied this, formally, historically, anthropology. I know what I’m talking about. Marriage began as an elitist institution, reserved for the monarchs and nobility of societies. Like literacy, education was not a “right” of the proletariat and working class. The protestants and liberals in the United States are very “backward” in terms of general world history. Literacy to the slave and serf classes, is unprecedented, exceptional, and rare in world history.
So too, is marriage actually. Marriage, spirituality, and literacy were all reserved for the elitists, hundreds of years ago. I don’t think Americans can really put this into context today. Today, the typcial American takes it for granted, hugely privileged. Over privileged, really. The average American doesn’t truly fathom just how lucky, privileged, and wealthy he or she is, in terms of social opportunities. In fact, we almost have too much opportunity in America.
I partially agree with Tentative on one point, consensual agreement. Marriage was formed by agreements, but this quickly evolved. Marriage became “spiritual” when the power of reproduction was added as a necessary element to marriage. The state is trying to destroy this aspect of marriage. The postmodern, Western state, attempts to say that marriage is about “love”, not sex and not genetic reproduction. This creates the possibility for a homosexual couple, two grown adult men, sodomizing each other, calling this “normal”, and adopting children. All this is “normal” according to liberals.
This is the state’s version of marriage. It’s a cultural competition. And the liberals are actually winning, believe it or not. I link this all back to communism, due to how obvious the connection is. Although it seems some of you, are a little intimidated by this connection. You may not have the formal knowledge I do. I’m very well versed in Cold War history, and the history of communism. Liberalism is the child of communism and capitalism, added together. Marx actually predicted all of this, almost down to the letter. If American philosophers were a little more world informed, and educated, then this topic wouldn’t come as a surprise or shock to most of you.
If you’re shocked by what I’m writing, and how I’m expressing myself, then I recommend more formal knowledge and schooling, and your local community college or university. This is philosophy 101 stuff, really.
The state’s new encroachment. I mean come on man. If you cut the stuff out of your post that’s serves no purpose other than to emotionally persuade what would be left?
What’s your take on marriage? Have you been married before, plan to ever tie the knot? I’ve offered my piece, you don’t have to accept what I say obviously, as if I could compel anyone to do so anyway. What’s your say?
I say if the only thing hurt by a person’s actions are another person’s sensibilities then the other person kinda has to fuck off.
Other than the descriptive account of what marriage is and has been through history and the talk of what influences the nature and perception of it, everything else is exactly you trying to get people to believe your view is right.
I think the whole thing is a big silly charade and it reminds me of the famous truth that most people are idiots.
=D> =D> =D>
rununder, I believe the woman’s name is Catherine Windsor, not Kate Middleton. Furthermore, marriage wasn’t just “for the elite”–peasants were married. Even the local priest who married them was married. If there was no local priest, couples became betrothed and set up house-keeping together until a traveling monk came into the area. He’d then marry everyone all at once and the town would party for over a week–including the kids.
As for marriage as something more than a commitment between two people–I suppose it is, kind of. For a Catholic, marriage is a sacrament that can only be celebrated once in a person’s life time. Beyond that, it’s a way of publicly announcing that commitment to family and friends and inviting them to join the couple in the celebration of the marriage rite. My husband and I have been married for 37 yrs.
And we have a daughter–through the adoption process. It turned out neither one of us could have children–even after surgeries. We know our daughter’s birth parents–we helped her locate them when she turned 18. They seem like very nice people who were happy to meet us. As her birth father said, it comforted him to know he made the “right” decision when he agreed to give up his first-born.
I really don’t care what you broadcast over cyber space–there are always going to be one hell of a lot of people around who will refute you.
Welcome to ILP. 
Actually it was Nazi Germany, not the holders of Marx’s ideology that held the key to a new vision of family life. In their scheme, eugenics played an important part in the production of only the best specimen’s, and after birth, it was the state, to whom the upbringing of the children was entrusted to.
In this way, the family unit was degraded, in an effort to advance the state, as the ultimate arbiter of the values of life to new generations to come. Eugenics played a key part of the determination as to how this scheme played out.
That it ended miserably, is not necessarily negative to the fact, the there is no telling how other equally ideas will come to come close to what happened in germany. Some of which are already in practice, although not yet in complete legitimacy and transparency. Some of these are euthanasia, abortion, body part transplantation, stem cell research. We are not very far, to come full circle to some of the practices in the last century, which after the world wars became Verboten.
Thanks Lizbeth! Your story reminded me of white liberals who don’t have any children, but instead, adopt children from minorities to fill the “gap” in their lives. Some may consider that very noble. However, I have some doubts. I don’t think it’s good to encourage other people in society to have children and abandoning them. Adoption caters to bad parents and irresponsible decisions. In my opinion, orphans should not be adopted, but instead given over to the state for state functions. Orphans should be raised in the military or social service sectors.
If people continue to blindly raise adoptees, then this country will continue in its path of having dozens of children by teenagers in high school, who abort or give their children away. That’s not the direction this country should be “evolving”. But, the destruction of the traditional family seems imminent, with everybody’s general attitude. Nobody seems to care anymore about a man and woman in love, and having their own biological children and rearing them responsibly. This is almost criminalized today. It’s become a crime to be normal.
My point is, people shouldn’t adopt children, unless they are a direct blood relative of your immediate family.
I guess this serves as encouragement to young men today, go on and have lots of children out of wedlock, abandon them, then good white liberals will adopt them, pay for them, and raise them for you, what a deal! That sounds like a great deal. I’d like to sign up for this. Where do I go, to knowingly take advantage of this social attitude?
Basically I have dozens of children, abandon them, then give them to the local adoption agency to raise for me, that’s great.
I can’t believe that this is the dominant social theme of our era, but, it is what it is.
Good lord! Hitler lives!! Gobbo will be so thrilled!