Get Rid of Marriage!

Post Reply New Topic

You don't happen to believe in the value of guns by any chance do you, ASPER?

My understanding of marriage all in.

Promiscuity makes STD's Strong... Humans are driven to reproduce... Once procreation becomes reproduction, then the instinct to procreate diminishes somewhat. . . Marriage is a set of guidelines (X a) that's set by the society who follow(X) religion. These guidelines are crystal clear... Stand by Each other No matter the trouble... Agreed this is a problem if the wrong people marry, but if most people would follow the basic guidelines specified in those vows there would be far less failed marriages, thanks to unfaithful behavior.

This bit is controversial, but Ill lay it on the line;
If one is searching for a mate among the same sex, how is there a need for marriage? There will never be children to nurture, Nothing to protect but oneself. And likely although homosexual males may not be interested in the fairer sex they are still driven to reproduce. An ingrained instinct that can never be fulfilled. With no fullfillment the search will continue without end.
Searching for a mate within same sex (Especially male) will very likely lead to promescuity. If I am wrong about this, because I do have a heterosexual perspective, than I am afraid that most other heterosexual males likely share a similar sense of contradiction with the idea of homosexual marriage.

Whatever floats your boat... I'm just B.S.ing here...


To be open for shoes thrown at my head, heres a little personal contradiction to add to the fire.

I don't have a problem with Lesbian marriage. Women are instinctive nurtures, and don't have excessive amounts of testosterone clouding their judgement. Therefore I think its would be more likely for two women to remain monogamous and better able to look after a child together than two men. Therefore Lesbians can live comfortably under the banner of marriage.

Symbolism for those who want it.

Guidelines for those who need them.

A way to follow the lemmings for others.

I don't really care.

Marry or don't.

We did it common law.

Same legalities either way around here, but common law is allot more private and affordable.

The BOLDED words seem to imply that according to some qualities women have, lesbians would be successful in raising normal children.
According to the fact that the human offspring sees its parents or whoever raises him/her as one of the primary sources of emulation we can deduce that lesbianism will certainly have an influence in the child.
I'm not saying that homosexual parents will only produce homosexual individuals but the emotional attachment of the child to his/her homosexual parents could easily deem homosexuality as evolutionary correct, which is not.
(Some homosexuals want to imply that homosexuality is evolutionary correct by saying homosexuality is "natural", and yes it is natural, because it happens in nature, but is more of a random accident(and/or upbringing causality in the human case) than a survivalist process).

Last edited by ASPER on 02 Jan 2010, 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Guns cost money, of course they have value, I don't need to believe in it for them to have value.
(This is the only answer I can give you for now because you haven't specified your question).

lol! I'm starting to wonder if there's anything on WP that I can't already get from my family!! I have 4 AS siblings: a brother who's an atheist; a brother whose ideals resemble that of a civil libertarian (of course he would never claim allegiance to any group because he is an individual); a sister who believes we all have souls; and a sister who can justify any position for the purposes of continuuing a debate. So I guess I feel right at home here! lol!

So anyhow, you sound like my civil libertarian-ish brother and he thinks that guns are a necessary part of his notion of an ideal society. So I guess I was probably being unfair to assume you would think the same thing.

But if you do think that guns could be of use in any way that would cause harm to another then I would question both your idea of ethics, and your argument that society doesn't need to fear the idea of anarchy. It's like replacing force with murder.

I wasn't going to make it easy for you, your question sounded too NT-ish.
...Are your siblings here on WP? Who are they? ... You might not want to reveal, idk, it's okay.



Guns...
Guns can harm others, as swords, rocks, 2by4s, hammers, mugs, ashtrays or flashlights.
Guns just happen to be a quicker and more efficient way to hurt someone.


First- You have to understand the market reality. Products arise because there are customers who would buy them.
Consumers want guns, providers will produce guns.

Second- You should not ban anyone from having any device as long as he does not uses it to hurt anyone with it.
So, as long as my neighbor doesn't shoot anyone, he can have a gun, because, who am I to tell him that he can't defend himself with a gun? Nobody.

Thirdly- Statistics show the UK has more knife crimes per capita than the US has gun crimes per capita. Crime is crime however it is executed and criminals find a way always. They don't need laws to have weapons, they will have weapons even if banned, or if completely removed they would find other weapons, like they do in prison where there's no guns and maximum security yet people get killed.

Fourthly- With more guns per capita, thieves will think twice before robbing a store or entering a house. This is something for you to consider.

Finally, the question: Could more people die than before when there was less guns per capita?
Temporarily, yes.
But those who die would mostly be criminals attempting to commit crimes as they are the ones engaging in criminal activities such as robberies and involved in gang violence.
This will cause a decrease in the criminal population, bringing peace to the communities, basically a quasi-natural cleansing of society.

I mean this in the kindest possible way ASPER, but your ideas sound just as loopy as my brother's.
I really can't see how peace can be brought about from killing.
And if it hadn't been for the date you joined WP I was starting to wonder if you ARE my brother. (We only got diagnosed in the last couple of years.) I think he might be on here but I have no idea which one he is! lol

Marriage does one thing which makes it important in modern society.

In a medical situation in which someone is incapacitated decisions are are made by the following in this order...

Spouse
Adult Children
Parents
Siblings
the State

These are also the people who determine what happens if you die and who have access if you are in critical condition in the hospital. For these reasons I think marriage needs to be around. And I think if someone is Gay or otherwise has an nontraditional relationship (in which all parties are in agreement) these kind of protections should be in place.

In some countries there IS the sort of separation between state marriage and religious marriage, my brother-in-law was married in Germany and had to get married twice (once for that state and once for the catholic church)

Now as an example of why I think this... I know a guy who is gay and he was living with a man for years and when he got sick and was dieing the family wouldn't let him visit and he was not allowed to go to the funeral when he died.

This is a civil rights issue and I MUST support the rights (irregardless of my thoughts on homosexuality) as if I say that it's OK to not allow them some right or another, then when they start taking away mine (for being an aspie) or my kids (for being auties) then how and I speak up?

Abolish marriage altogether! It's a dreadful institution designed to tie people down and pay stupid money for lavish weddings which usually end in divorce

I made some points why guns will not disappear anytime soon and how could they be taken an advantage of by responsible and morally superior individuals.
You didn't seem to address these points but just responded with baseless skepticism to too much liberty.


Peace from killing happens via the reduction of the criminal population, this is common sense(kill the killer, prevent further killing) but this is not exclusively why I don't want to ban guns.
I am not proposing going out with a killing squad to wipe out the scum of our cities.
Just more responsible people owning guns and carrying them, less regulations from the State(of course, no regulations as an ultimate goal).

Cops carry guns, you trust them? (What makes them morally superior? They are funded through extortion, get raises if they arrest more people, blindly enforce victimless crimes)
What would cops be without guns? What would it be if all responsible individuals would carry guns, that's like a unbiased cop per person.



You mentioned in the PM:
"I don't trust that all people have good intentions. How would it be determined if there was an acceptable excuse for someone who shoots and kills a person? If they are wealthy would it be easier for them to kill a poorer person without any question of their guilt?"

Determined just as it is determined today, by courts.
Just that these courts are not funded through extortion but requested its services by consenting individuals, it is not centralized, therefore non-biased, and operates on a profit motive and depends a lot on their reputation.
So, you have judges, jury, investigators and issue verdicts to clients who request your arbitration.
The more just and rational is your private court, the more people will request your arbitration, the best collective results will a society enjoy.


You also said:
I understand the point about criminals not being able to pay for damages they incur. But what if there was a different solution such as making them work for the state so that through their labour they are then able to pay for the damages? I mean, just because the state governing system has its faults, is it really necessary to overthrow it entirely?

I agree with a prison that through inmate labor makes profits that can cover the prison costs and compensate the victim(s). Just that it has to be private for the profit motive and reputation be an issue for employees and costumers to consider.
The opposite of extortion funded prisons where the friends and family of the State very rarely get to visit.




(We both want to reach the same ends, peace, health, prosperity, security, order, we just have different means, methods of achieving that. Mine is the free market and descentralizing power to possibly achieve some day the discontinuation of the State. You still haven't proposed much of a way to achieve peace and order except very limited and in a idealistic way).

haha! And I guess that makes me the political equivalent of an atheist. Because I am very skeptical that an ideal society of peace and the other qualities you listed can actually be achieved through any form of governing unless there is some sort of amazing elevation in people's ethics. I know I've mentioned that before - but I seriously think that without that - there can't be peace no matter what we do, or who we believe in, or how many people can wield a gun.

There is somewhat of a contradiction in your theory about 'kill the killer and prevent further killing'. Because who exactly is supposed to 'kill the killer' if it's not another killer? Don't you think that if the solution to murder is murder itself, then it's going to be an unending cycle of murder? Someone's sister kills a guy because he killed her brother, then his mother kills the sister, so then her uncle takes out the woman's husband, so then his other son kills the uncle and on and on it could go. Who decides which of these murders is justified? How can peace be achieved if killing is tolerated? Even if the majority of citizens decide on some bizarre point where killing is acceptable, it is going to leave a minority who are hurt and will likely seek vengeance. So then would it be acceptable to kill this minority of people who have been hurt and could therefore become the next murderers? If so, then don't forget about their friends and cousins who would then be hurt by their murders. And then their friends and cousins. And so on it goes.

And no, I don't trust cops either in general.
And you're right - I don't have a solution. But your's might also be idealistic. Have you ever participated in a meeting where everyone had equal control over the decisions and successfully arrived at a workable solution? From what I've noticed, it usually turns out to be a classic case of the majority decision outweighing a minority. And the majority is usually more stupid for some reason!! idk why!! !

I don't like rigid control, but I also don't like guns, and I don't like some people being wealthy while others are starving to death (whether they've been born into that situation or not). Whatever the current form of government is - if there is a clear indication that people can live ethically, then there's probably no need for others to enforce ethical behaviour onto them. But that's not the case at the moment - so yes, I would be worried by the idea that some of the crazy people I went to school with have the authority to assert their crazy idea of 'rights' AND use a gun to do so!

I appreciate that your methods are well thought out (much more so than mine!) - but I can't get past the fact that it creeps me out. So sorry - no convert here.

I think abstinence until marriage should be banned.

Is that sarcasm? You kidding, Tim?

You said:
"I am very skeptical that an ideal society of peace and the other qualities you listed can actually be achieved through any form of governing unless there is some sort of amazing elevation in people's ethics"

I did not propose governing [anyone], I propose complete decentralization and the market dealing with everything. Consenting individuals, consumers and providers, working with each other voluntarily.

Human evolution, education and science will lead to higher ethics but if you think a government full of ethical people executing services non-corruptly is possible you fail at thinking such thing is possible.
The State is what leads to the degeneration of humanity.
With higher ethics a free market it is all you need. There is no threat of power centralization as we all use the democracy of the market and no one is coerced into participating in any transaction one doesn't want.




"Kill the killer"
I thought about it when I wrote that the other day, I did not change it because it rhymed and it looked memorizable.
Let me rephrase it: "Kill the murderer".
Killing and murdering are different.
After all, all words.
You know what I wanted to say, focus on that concept.

Your killing cycle theory is unrealistic.
We're talking about removing, eliminating, extracting defective individuals, not a no one's land action movie killing frenzy.

"Who decides which of these murders are justified"
I told you in a previous post about private courts. Could it be you are not reading my posts? It very well looks like it. Don't rush to answer my posts if you haven't really understood what I've said. Sometimes it takes 2 or 3 times to understand what I'm saying.

"How can peace be achieved if killing is tolerated?"
Killing is not tolerated, it is discouraged by the fact that you have the chance of dieing when you murder someone.
You are generalizing concepts and acting as if everything is going to be peaceful without self defense. You're naive if you think so.

Majority/minority and killing point is irrelevant.
Majorities and minorities are a political-democracy-created problem.
In a free society everyone is an individual and different.
Everyone is interconnected in some way or another and need each other in some way or another.
There are no political parties, no State to lobby for, no ballots nor economic monopolies, just people dealing with each other for their own economic good, regardless of their ethnic or religious background.




My solution is idealistic?
Yeah, you are right, it is idealistic and you just made me realize another mistake I made with words.
Have in mind "solution" can be means or ends.
I said you have no "solution"(means) to achieve your ends but then call your "solution"(ends) "idealistic".
I should have called your ends "utopian" as if they will be substeinance without work, and call your means, well, I did say you have none(you just see it as everything is going to be fixed by itself).
Now, my ends have been called utopian too, they are not because mistakes will still occur, just it will have a system of dealing with corruption more efficiently.
Knowing the human mind, "utopia" is a subjective, therefore collectively unreal.

Why the majority tend to be more stupid and vulgar when it comes to making decisions?
Why do we humans tend to favor popular choices and be deceived by large amounts of people?
That is a complex question. An epistemological issue that could take a lot of time to address.



"I would be worried by the idea that some of the crazy people I went to school with have the authority to assert their crazy idea of 'rights' AND use a gun to do so!"

Isn't that what happens? Some of the people you go to school with end up working for the State and legitimize this institution that enforces their values unto others at gun point(law enforcement).
I know that your principles of peace and unity contradict the nature and function of the State, but I do not see you oppose the State and if you oppose the State it means you favor a free market over a manipulated one.



I don't need to convert you, we share sort of the same ends already but I see you are biased by your religion of non-self-defense and inaction.

Hello Philotix - are you still around? Haven't seen you on here lately. Anyhow I apologise to everyone here that this is still not on topic exactly.

ASPER - I really do appreciate your enthusiasm for this - and you're right about my inaction - I guess I've given up on society. Society and I didn't get along well anyhow!! lol

And I can't tell you how much I love the word 'free' because I really really love it. And it could be so easy for me to get swept up in something based on the usage of that word alone!! !! ! But there's a couple of things in this proposed system that I just can't help seeing as tainting that word 'free' for me.

I've said it before but it's the wealthy people being allowed to be wealthy whilst others are starving. And it's the guns. And it's the idea that some people are 'defective!! !?' which makes it okay?! ! to deprive them of life!!?? These are big issues for me and you're right - I am biased, but it's not because of my religion - but rather because of my values that just happen to coincide with the religion I choose.

So now I'll respond to a few of the things in your post. And by the way are you a school teacher or something?? Telling me I have to read your post 3 or 4 times!! That made me laugh!

Re governing - sorry if I chose the wrong word. I thought that it could still apply, as in self-governing.

Re voluntary and consenting individuals - I doubt the poorer end of the spectrum of 'free' people would regard themselves as this.

Re no threat of power centralisation - I think there would be a threat of power being centralised in the wealthier communities. The state may be corrupt, but do you really believe wealthy people can't be corrupt either?

It's not the state that leads to the degeneration of humanity, but rather a lack of ethics. The state is a by-product of the situation humanity finds itself in - not the cause. Although it can then become a cause of other things. But basically I don't think it could do much damage if the standard of ethics in people was already high.

Re killing and murdering - You know my stance on this. I see no difference between the two terms and I'm totally opposed to the idea of ceasing the life of someone regarded as 'defective'. Also, there are other ways to discourage killing that don't involve killing.

Re private courts - I responded to this idea in my last post when I mentioned meetings usually ending in a majority decision. Again, I'd be concerned about corruption amongst those wealthier types! Yeah I know - it's a personal bias. But I'd love for someone to explain to me the virtues of there being wealthy people whilst others are starving to death. Because that's always been a mystery to me. And majority/minority is still going to be relevant in your system because it seems to be a natural human instinct - to form cliques or group together. And not everyone can be a part of those groups.

Re idealistic solutions - I take it back. Yours is not idealistic if 'defective' people are subject to poverty and being killed. But otherwise it sounds very nice that everyone is free to be an individual and go about their ways of gathering wealth. (And hopefully giving wealth!) But yeah, as I said before - I've kinda given up hope. And you're right - I'm after something more utopian, without any faults whatsoever - which is why I'm hoping to flee society and existence altogether using the great wings of enlightenment! I just can't see any other way out of it.

And my religion is not about non-self-defence. There are ways to defend oneself that don't involve killing the person. In fact it was a buddhist nun who created Wing Chun Kung Fu - probably the best form of martial arts IMO! And my religion is not about inaction either. But it's perhaps true to say that it sees action in the mind as a more worthwhile pursuit than any external action.

As for a free market - I've not studied it, or any other market for that matter. So I can't hold too much of an opinion other than I love the word 'free' and I'm opposed to those particular things that I already mentioned that I'm opposed to. And yes, there are crazy people in society - some of whom hold positions of power. And I just try to keep to myself and hope that they can't impact too much on my life. That's my only solution for the time being.

To get back to the subject, I have the right to marry my imaginary pet cat.