21 replies to this topic

[Loki]

So our governor took time out of fucking over the teachers unions in order to legalize same sex marriage. I'm thrilled my state has done this, however since I'm from rural upstate I'm in the minority.

[Black Cat]

I'd rather see the institution of marriage abolished entirely, but as long as it isn't, it should be available to everyone. Especially because in the end this progress will lead to it losing its exclusivity completely, so hopefully people will recognize how redundant it actually is.

[SertraOD]

I think I like marriage. The non-state sponsored kind.

So that works out then, I guess.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Black Cat, on 25 July 2011 - 12:54 PM, said:

I'd rather see the institution of marriage abolished entirely, but as long as it isn't, it should be available to everyone. Especially because in the end this progress will lead to it losing its exclusivity completely, so hopefully people will recognize how redundant it actually is.

I rather like you.

[Black Cat]

Punk Rock Geek, on 29 July 2011 - 11:29 PM, said:

I rather like you.

Let's not get married.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Black Cat, on 30 July 2011 - 02:32 AM, said:

Let's not get married.

This is the happiest day of my life.  

[Black Cat]

SertraOD, on 29 July 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:

I think I like marriage. The non-state sponsored kind.

So that works out then, I guess.

What do you mean exactly? I would think, the non-state sponsored kind of marriage isn't actually a marriage, whichever kind you're talking about.  

Punk Rock Geek, on 30 July 2011 - 03:26 AM, said:

This is the happiest day of my life.  

I once uttered my opinion on marriage and free love on another forum, right after a married guy gave his thoughts on the subject. Not that I wasn't expecting to get shit for what I said, but I can never help it to still feel really sad about getting called a selfish person with no heart, who is afraid of commitment over this matter. Out of all radical ideas, that I support, the concept of free love is the one, that I feel most annoyed about, when I'm being misunderstood and/or people just don't want to understand it. And it often bothers me, that even in the company of people, who are familiar with radical ideas, you usually have to argue so much and get defensive, when this topic comes up.

[SertraOD]

Quote

What do you mean exactly? I would think, the non-state sponsored kind of marriage isn't actually a marriage, whichever kind you're talking about.

Marriage as a cultural institution.

Civil unions of some sort are necessary if people split. Especially if kids are involved. Can't see it working out any other way. Although this might not be necessary with communal living.

Quote

I once uttered my opinion on marriage and free love on another forum, right after a married guy gave his thoughts on the subject. Not that I wasn't expecting to get shit for what I said, but I can never help it to still feel really sad about getting called a selfish person with no heart, who is afraid of commitment over this matter. Out of all radical ideas, that I support, the concept of free love is the one, that I feel most annoyed about, when I'm being misunderstood and/or people just don't want to understand it. And it often bothers me, that even in the company of people, who are familiar with radical ideas, you usually have to argue so much and get defensive, when this topic comes up.

I dunno, what do you mean by free love? I've only had a sense of genuine, unending love without expectation for one person. So it's not promiscuous in the slightest, but it's not nor ever will be written in stone. Just total adoration for this one person accompanied by a sense of total acceptance.

Ever since her, I just don't genuinely care about others and I feel enslaved by a sense of lust.

[Black Cat]

SertraOD, on 31 July 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

Marriage as a cultural institution.

Civil unions of some sort are necessary if people split. Especially if kids are involved. Can't see it working out any other way. Although this might not be necessary with communal living.

I dunno, what do you mean by free love? I've only had a sense of genuine, unending love without expectation for one person. So it's not promiscuous in the slightest, but it's not nor ever will be written in stone. Just total adoration for this one person accompanied by a sense of total acceptance.

Ever since her, I just don't genuinely care about others and I feel enslaved by a sense of lust.

I meant the concept of free love as in the Free Love Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

or the idea of Polyamory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Basically I think, that it unnecessarily limits the individual freedom of a person, if they are bound by law, or even by other rules or agreements to stay with another person. If it's mutual, there are no rules needed and if it's not, it shouldn't be forced by obeying to rules. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, I'm a bit sleepy.

But there are so many things, that we cannot choose for ourselves, that we cannot change. But we could choose how to handle love and relationships so much better, if only we could overcome all those ideas, society has forced upon us. Like that we need to find someone to stay with us for the rest of our lives and that this is the ultimate goal. Because we cannot possibly be complete on our own. An idea, especially girls and women are still made to believe. So that people put all their precious energy, that could be needed elsewhere, in chasing dreams of eternal, never ending love or stay with a partner, who's bad for them, only to be closer to the ideal. Or the rule, that cheating is bad in any case. The idea, that sleeping with someone else or falling in love with another person while being in relationship is cheating in the first place. How much pain and misery has come from those ideas? This isn't freedom.

And whereas other social injustices in our society cannot be changed, or at least not over night or even in our lifetime, this is something we can change right away. With every relationship we have. It's one glimpse of anarchism, of denying to be bound by rules where we don't need them, in our everyday life which surprisingly not more people are cherishing or even noticing.

And yeah, it might not be necessary with communal living, where not only the parents would care for the children. Some parents, split up or not, and especially their kids, were definitely better off with the community caring for the kids. If that's properly organized, of course, I'm not talking about the foster care system as we have it today.  

I like your definition of love. I would add, that you really love someone, when you're simply content and happy, that they are there, I mean alive and well, whether they are with you or not.

[SertraOD]

I wouldn't say I'm content and happy at all. I just love her so much that I would live a loveless life if it was for her benefit.

I'm incapable of love without her.

Work on yourself and you will find "the one"--I think you're half-right. I think there is truth in being cautious about sex rather than simply relaxing on the process of splitting up. Be more cautious about entering relationships, don't make it easy to split. Because the naturalistic point of love is the creation of life. And if you create a life, you have a responsibility. So it's your responsibility to unconditionally love the person you enter a relationship with. I believe this bests suits our emotional lives, our material lives, our spiritual lives.

I believe this was the original intent of marriage--marriage was supposed to be a union of unconditional love. It's abused by marrying for other reasons. We could do away with marriage but we have to define what unconditional love is. I think unconditional love is a prerequisite for sex. It's a responsibility for engaging in any relationship that could wind up in disease or children. Children are most often messed up when they lack both their parents, or if their parents don't love each other. Or for what ever reason. My mom married my Dad because of money and my Dad married my Mom because of her looks. Look how fucked up I am. It's a fucked up relationship and it fucked up my view of relationships more than a single parent family. The sexual revolution was bullshit. All it did was lead to children raised in messed up families in mass. Not every bit of social progression was positive.

Women's rights, gay rights, minority rights... all positive. But we've made mistakes in every area. Women's rights doesn't mean "sexually liberating" women to the point of promiscuity. It means they're allowed to enjoy their sexuality for what it is. For most women, it's selective. But in the past men were selfish about it. Selective, even exchange of pleasures is what sexual liberation should be about. Women generally are selective because, well, they could have a kid from the whole ordeal. Kinda like affirmative action, it just took it too far. Reparations would've made more sense, really. Invest in black communities so they could've started their own businesses rather than handing them competitive jobs.

I don't think men are horny dogs because they're meant to sow their seed, I think it's so that when they do get in a woman's pants, they want to keep her. Sex is a bond. How we handle break ups is probably one of the hardest things to change, really. It involves your heart, your hormones, your living situation. We should be more conservative with sex. Liberal socially and economically, conservative in dealing with our lives. Be conservative with alcohol, drugs, the food you eat. Be conservative with the sex you'll engage in. Don't force it, just do it for your own good. Life is better without junk food, alcohol, promiscuous sex for reasons that are difficult to see. Although, I do think life is better with a bit of weed and entheogens, but one should be conservative with such things as well. They're medicine and sacraments respectively.

A rule I've broken, but a rule I intend to follow from here on out, pray I don't give in to weakness.

[Black Cat]

I think, if people were really free in their choices of whom to love and whom to share their lives with, they would automatically become more cautious when entering a relationship. However, people will always make mistakes or will simply change over the years. And if you love someone, how can you ask them to be responsible for loving you unconditionally, although they simply don't anymore? Like I said, I'm not against commitment, I just don't think, it can or should be forced.

Why would she ask you to live a loveless life? And I just hope, you're not only acting on what you think is for her benefit, but on what she actually thinks is beneficial to her.

Edit: Oh, you edited your post and wrote more. I have to go to bed now, I will read it tomorrow.

[SertraOD]

Quote

choices of whom to love

I don't think it's a choice?

Quote

whom to share their lives with

And, thus, if you follow the principle of love, this isn't either.

Quote

become more cautious when entering a relationship

Let me rephrase. One should follow real love blindly, and simply not enter anything less.

Quote

However, people will always make mistakes or will simply change over the years.

I believe love has a bit more of a "psychic bond" than that. Such relationships where people grow apart well... they were never really on the same wavelength.

Quote

Why would she ask you to live a loveless life? And I just hope, you're not only acting on what you think is for her benefit, but on what she actually thinks is beneficial to her.

If she didn't want to be with me that's just what would happen. I'm acting as if I'll always be there, but if she doesn't want it... well, then that's just the way it is.

I'm not taking any action, per se. It's just the way it is. I love her, I always will, and nothing can replace that and I wouldn't want anything less. It's something most people don't understand. But if I can't have love, I'd rather be celibate and get closer to god. Anything else would just be giving in to materialistic desire. God is love, and it appears there is only one sanctioned for me. I simply can't feel it for others. So it's either follow love and get closer to God, or be celibate and get closer to God. I don't believe I'm capable of love for anybody else. One love...

[Punk Rock Geek]

SertraOD, on 31 July 2011 - 04:29 PM, said:

I don't think it's a choice?

I believe she means the choice of whom you want to enter into a romantic relationship with.

[Punk Rock Geek]

SertraOD, on 31 July 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

I'm incapable of love without her.

I think most people have felt the same way at some point in their life, and then changed.

Quote

Work on yourself and you will find "the one"--I think you're half-right. I think there is truth in being cautious about sex rather than simply relaxing on the process of splitting up. Be more cautious about entering relationships, don't make it easy to split. Because the naturalistic point of love is the creation of life. And if you create a life, you have a responsibility. So it's your responsibility to unconditionally love the person you enter a relationship with. I believe this bests suits our emotional lives, our material lives, our spiritual lives.

But marriage isn't usually unconditional.  The condition is as such:  "I will love you, provided that you love only me in return."  Marriage is based on the concept of exclusivity; it's a social (and often legal) contract intended to make free love taboo, and as such limit the choices of your romantic partner.  But what type of love is so fragile?  That's not a love of a person--that's a mere love of attention.  Love of a person is when you feel happiness in seeing them happy, regardless of whether or not it results in more or less attention for yourself.  Marriage is convenient, at least in the short term.  Love isn't, necessarily.

Quote

I believe this was the original intent of marriage--marriage was supposed to be a union of unconditional love. It's abused by marrying for other reasons. We could do away with marriage but we have to define what unconditional love is. I think unconditional love is a prerequisite for sex. It's a responsibility for engaging in any relationship that could wind up in disease or children. Children are most often messed up when they lack both their parents, or if their parents don't love each other. Or for what ever reason. My mom married my Dad because of money and my Dad married my Mom because of her looks. Look how fucked up I am. It's a fucked up relationship and it fucked up my view of relationships more than a single parent family. The sexual revolution was bullshit. All it did was lead to children raised in messed up families in mass. Not every bit of social progression was positive.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  There were plenty of marriages based on money and beauty in the olden days too; only difference was that women weren't able to file for a divorce and were stuck in loveless relationships.  You're not suggesting that we take that right away again?

Quote

Women's rights, gay rights, minority rights... all positive. But we've made mistakes in every area. Women's rights doesn't mean "sexually liberating" women to the point of promiscuity. It means they're allowed to enjoy their sexuality for what it is. For most women, it's selective. But in the past men were selfish about it. Selective, even exchange of pleasures is what sexual liberation should be about. Women generally are selective because, well, they could have a kid from the whole ordeal. Kinda like affirmative action, it just took it too far. Reparations would've made more sense, really. Invest in black communities so they could've started their own businesses rather than handing them competitive jobs.

I don't think it's fair to equate free love with promiscuity.  The idea that you can love more than one person does not mean that you you are going to have meaningless casual sex with others, or in my case, with anyone at all.  Not that anything is wrong with that.

But you might enjoy the book "Female Chauvinist Pigs" by Ariel Levy.  It's a stab at women (and men) who try to pass off the corporatization of sex as real sexual liberation.

Quote

I don't think men are horny dogs because they're meant to sow their seed, I think it's so that when they do get in a woman's pants, they want to keep her. Sex is a bond. How we handle break ups is probably one of the hardest things to change, really. It involves your heart, your hormones, your living situation. We should be more conservative with sex. Liberal socially and economically, conservative in dealing with our lives. Be conservative with alcohol, drugs, the food you eat. Be conservative with the sex you'll engage in. Don't force it, just do it for your own good. Life is better without junk food, alcohol, promiscuous sex for reasons that are difficult to see. Although, I do think life is better with a bit of weed and entheogens, but one should be conservative with such things as well. They're medicine and sacraments respectively.

A rule I've broken, but a rule I intend to follow from here on out, pray I don't give in to weakness.

I don't actually disagree with anything here, minus the weed bit.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Black Cat, on 31 July 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

I meant the concept of free love as in the Free Love Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

or the idea of Polyamory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Basically I think, that it unnecessarily limits the individual freedom of a person, if they are bound by law, or even by other rules or agreements to stay with another person. If it's mutual, there are no rules needed and if it's not, it shouldn't be forced by obeying to rules. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, I'm a bit sleepy.

No, you've pretty much said it perfectly.  If both members wish to remain exclusive, it will happen without any words being spoken.  There's no reason for a contract.  And if the people involved have other things in mind, then the contract is even more worthless.

Quote

But there are so many things, that we cannot choose for ourselves, that we cannot change. But we could choose how to handle love and relationships so much better, if only we could overcome all those ideas, society has forced upon us. Like that we need to find someone to stay with us for the rest of our lives and that this is the ultimate goal. Because we cannot possibly be complete on our own. An idea, especially girls and women are still made to believe. So that people put all their precious energy, that could be needed elsewhere, in chasing dreams of eternal, never ending love or stay with a partner, who's bad for them, only to be closer to the ideal. Or the rule, that cheating is bad in any case. The idea, that sleeping with someone else or falling in love with another person while being in relationship is cheating in the first place. How much pain and misery has come from those ideas? This isn't freedom.

And whereas other social injustices in our society cannot be changed, or at least not over night or even in our lifetime, this is something we can change right away. With every relationship we have. It's one glimpse of anarchism, of denying to be bound by rules where we don't need them, in our everyday life which surprisingly not more people are cherishing or even noticing.

And yeah, it might not be necessary with communal living, where not only the parents would care for the children. Some parents, split up or not, and especially their kids, were definitely better off with the community caring for the kids. If that's properly organized, of course, I'm not talking about the foster care system as we have it today.  

I like your definition of love. I would add, that you really love someone, when you're simply content and happy, that they are there, I mean alive and well, whether they are with you or not.

Not much to add.  Just wanted to say I agree.

[SertraOD]

Quote

I think most people have felt the same way at some point in their life, and then changed.

Between meeting her I've had a three year relationship and several years of being single. Only seen her once in several years.

I think my case might be highly unusual. Actually, scratch that, it IS highly unusual. We can debate my personal life but frankly, you just haven't been here.

Quote

But marriage isn't usually unconditional. The condition is as such: "I will love you, provided that you love only me in return." Marriage is based on the concept of exclusivity; it's a social (and often legal) contract intended to make free love taboo, and as such limit the choices of your romantic partner. But what type of love is so fragile? That's not a love of a person--that's a mere love of attention. Love of a person is when you feel happiness in seeing them happy, regardless of whether or not it results in more or less attention for yourself. Marriage is convenient, at least in the short term. Love isn't, necessarily.

Which is wrong. Marriage should be two people who have unconditional love for each other. Thus, they simply wouldn't want to break up.

Maybe some consider that unrealistic but maybe we just need a better understanding of what unconditional, true love is. Maybe there's something wrong with our culture (duh).

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There were plenty of marriages based on money and beauty in the olden days too; only difference was that women weren't able to file for a divorce and were stuck in loveless relationships. You're not suggesting that we take that right away again?

Not at all. We just need a better understanding of what ought to be a marriage from the get go. A religious conception, really, not a legal one.

Quote

I don't think it's fair to equate free love with promiscuity. The idea that you can love more than one person does not mean that you you are going to have meaningless casual sex with others, or in my case, with anyone at all. Not that anything is wrong with that.

But you might enjoy the book "Female Chauvinist Pigs" by Ariel Levy. It's a stab at women (and men) who try to pass off the corporatization of sex as real sexual liberation.

I don't think every degree of love should be consummated. I'm not making rules here, I'm just saying what people ought to do. It's the right thing to do.

I do think there is something wrong with meaningless casual sex. Not that it should be forbidden, but people should realize that it's not good for them. We can say "different strokes, different folks". And in practice, I agree. But at the heart of the matter, seeking promiscuous casual sex is a symptom.

[SertraOD]

Quote

No, you've pretty much said it perfectly. If both members wish to remain exclusive, it will happen without any words being spoken. There's no reason for a contract. And if the people involved have other things in mind, then the contract is even more worthless.

I dunno. What about children, property, etc?

And beyond a contract, marriage is kind of a declaration to yourselves and the community. It's a ritual, but it's a ritual many people feel driven to engage in.

[Punk Rock Geek]

Black Cat, on 30 July 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

I once uttered my opinion on marriage and free love on another forum, right after a married guy gave his thoughts on the subject. Not that I wasn't expecting to get shit for what I said, but I can never help it to still feel really sad about getting called a selfish person with no heart, who is afraid of commitment over this matter. Out of all radical ideas, that I support, the concept of free love is the one, that I feel most annoyed about, when I'm being misunderstood and/or people just don't want to understand it. And it often bothers me, that even in the company of people, who are familiar with radical ideas, you usually have to argue so much and get defensive, when this topic comes up.

I don't understand their logic.  I wasn't aware that only people who believe in free love have turned down an offer for a committed relationship.  As long as you're not leading people on, I don't see the problem.

[Punk Rock Geek]

SertraOD, on 31 July 2011 - 11:10 PM, said:

Between meeting her I've had a three year relationship and several years of being single. Only seen her once in several years.

I think my case might be highly unusual. Actually, scratch that, it IS highly unusual. We can debate my personal life but frankly, you just haven't been here.

Wait, are you in love with the same girl you said was making you miserable just a while back?

Quote

Which is wrong. Marriage should be two people who have unconditional love for each other. Thus, they simply wouldn't want to break up.

Maybe some consider that unrealistic but maybe we just need a better understanding of what unconditional, true love is. Maybe there's something wrong with our culture (duh).

But if they want to remain exclusive on their own, why is marriage needed?

Quote

Not at all. We just need a better understanding of what ought to be a marriage from the get go. A religious conception, really, not a legal one.

But again, why is it necessary?

Quote

I don't think every degree of love should be consummated. I'm not making rules here, I'm just saying what people ought to do. It's the right thing to do.

Can't one person love two people equally?

Quote

I do think there is something wrong with meaningless casual sex. Not that it should be forbidden, but people should realize that it's not good for them. We can say "different strokes, different folks". And in practice, I agree. But at the heart of the matter, seeking promiscuous casual sex is a symptom.

I don't get the appeal of it, but I can't comment.

[SertraOD]

Quote

Wait, are you in love with the same girl you said was making you miserable just a while back?

No... complicated situation.

Quote

But if they want to remain exclusive on their own, why is marriage needed?

Marriage is a declaration that you intend to stay together. Thus, engaging in behavior that could result in children is more acceptable after such a declaration.

Also, it's a contract that allows us to know how to handle the children and property.

Quote

Can't one person love two people equally?

I can't speak for other people. But I can't. Looking at others, I don't think they do either. I just think people have fucked up definitions of what love is.