Greetings good citizen, I sometimes grow weary of politics and find it 'refreshing' to tear down other things like that bizarre institution we call marriage.
I'd probably be dead if not for my spouse [but that's no reason to hate her, she is a good person, just doing what she does.]
That said, marriage is a bizarre arrangement no matter which end of the rock you look at it from.
As...'individuals' we all crave 'fidelity' and value reliability/steadfastness above all things [often to the point of irrationality.]
We rationalize that if the other 'loves' us, they will sacrifice themselves for us.
Fortunately, most times, at least one of the 'partners' [a word the quickly gets lost in the shuffle] retains at least a modicum of sanity.
Like freedom, liberty and it's antonym, tyranny, most people never bother to look up the 'legal' definition of any of them. Worse, most would be aghast if they looked up the 'legal definition' of Marriage! [It never mentions the word love once...but it also doesn't reference insanity either...]
You have to jump through a number of 'hoops' to join in matrimony because for reasons not quite clear, the 'industry' refrains from admitting that marriage is a 'contract'. [Sort of takes all the 'romance' out of it.]
So, since we don't enter 'matrimony' with our eyes open, we are often blindsided when it comes crashing down, to the detriment of all parties involved, [largely due to laws that have little relevance in today's reality.]
Sociologists theorized 'marriage' started off 'organically', with parents 'bonding' to ensure the survival of their offspring.
Then the lawyers got involved and suddenly you were 'on the hook' for more then you bargained for. [Both ends of the equation, not just the guys...who complain the loudest because they are usually the ones who consider what the arrangement actually means the least.]
Before this is picked up and used in the 'mudfight' that often best describes this feindish creation. let me back up a step and state for the court that I speak in 'generalizations'...usually both parties are somewhat callous and unrealistic when to comes to making lifelong commitments.
Marriages importance as a 'social institution' cannot be marginalized although most of us would sooner marry our pets. [A sad indictment of the state of general 'human relations' but one easily demonstrated.] Most times we are kinder, more understanding of 'the objects of our affection' than we are of our 'life partners'.
If we strike at the 'root' of the modern institution, society has already 'written off' marriage. The 'future of the species' is now endangered by reckless, unbridled breeding. How unfortunate for most of us only the intelligent recognize this?
'The single factor' continue to breed without regard for the consequences and it baffles the only marginally less stupid how they can 'afford' to do this and it's because they are too stupid to even consider it...and sterilizing them remains [for now] illegal.
Sooooooooooooo, never one to be 'shy' or to back away from 'sensitive' topics. I propose we 'alter' the arrangement to something more 'agreeable' to all parties involved...and start by kicking the ones who have no business in the whole affair out entirely!
'Legal control' of all progeny is turned over to society...which will 'regulate' who can breed and how many children they can have, based largely on physical and mental...characteristics.
Marriage, as it currently exists, is SUPPOSED to protect the MOTHER of the children from feckless partners who run off chasing younger, more attractive partners...[to the point of obsession in some cases.]
Most of you are giving males the 'stink eye' right now but men aren't the only ones that suffer from 'bedroom boredom'. A good provider may not be the most exciting/imaginative partner in other areas of life and the 'point' of life is to live it to the fullest [that your circumstances allow...which for most of us ain't sayin' much.]
I do NOT call for a complete prohibition on 'lifelong commitments' but I do propose making them considerably easier to terminate and lessening [in as much as possible] the 'collateral damage' done to children during 'messy' breakdowns of something that probably never should have occurred in the first place.
Which is to propose that children, paid for by society and raised by their (fully vetted) mother with ZERO financial obligation, commitment by the father.
A powerful...er, 'tool' to hand to just one half of the population but they are the ones 'built' to raise us. Since it is their responsibility it should also be their 'choice'. [Not that they'd be stuck with it. If afterwards they determined 'motherhood' wasn't for them, they would be free to 'opt out' and let a more 'seasoned hand' assume the role.
Men are currently 'trained' to be [if the maternal force is fully realized] 'steadfast'...but males tend to 'equate' and have severe problems with female 'fickleness', often interpreting it as infidelity...which can lead to fatal consequences...all because momma 'meant well'.
It's already apparent that this post is worthy of it's own novel, the implications are too numerous to address in a brief post.
Needless to say, if we are to survive without overruning the planet's 'carrying capacity' there are/MUST BE(more than a few) practical changes to the way things are currently done.
The future of the species relies on sane management, not arcane institutions that have outlived their usefulness.
This is just the tip of the iceberg on a very ticklish subject. Get this wrong and we'll end up extinct faster than mass suicide!
Worse, if the current feckless disagree, they might make that choice for us...now there's a chilling thought!
Thanks once again for letting me entertain your neurons!
Gegner
I'd probably be dead if not for my spouse [but that's no reason to hate her, she is a good person, just doing what she does.]
That said, marriage is a bizarre arrangement no matter which end of the rock you look at it from.
As...'individuals' we all crave 'fidelity' and value reliability/steadfastness above all things [often to the point of irrationality.]
We rationalize that if the other 'loves' us, they will sacrifice themselves for us.
Fortunately, most times, at least one of the 'partners' [a word the quickly gets lost in the shuffle] retains at least a modicum of sanity.
Like freedom, liberty and it's antonym, tyranny, most people never bother to look up the 'legal' definition of any of them. Worse, most would be aghast if they looked up the 'legal definition' of Marriage! [It never mentions the word love once...but it also doesn't reference insanity either...]
You have to jump through a number of 'hoops' to join in matrimony because for reasons not quite clear, the 'industry' refrains from admitting that marriage is a 'contract'. [Sort of takes all the 'romance' out of it.]
So, since we don't enter 'matrimony' with our eyes open, we are often blindsided when it comes crashing down, to the detriment of all parties involved, [largely due to laws that have little relevance in today's reality.]
Sociologists theorized 'marriage' started off 'organically', with parents 'bonding' to ensure the survival of their offspring.
Then the lawyers got involved and suddenly you were 'on the hook' for more then you bargained for. [Both ends of the equation, not just the guys...who complain the loudest because they are usually the ones who consider what the arrangement actually means the least.]
Before this is picked up and used in the 'mudfight' that often best describes this feindish creation. let me back up a step and state for the court that I speak in 'generalizations'...usually both parties are somewhat callous and unrealistic when to comes to making lifelong commitments.
Marriages importance as a 'social institution' cannot be marginalized although most of us would sooner marry our pets. [A sad indictment of the state of general 'human relations' but one easily demonstrated.] Most times we are kinder, more understanding of 'the objects of our affection' than we are of our 'life partners'.
If we strike at the 'root' of the modern institution, society has already 'written off' marriage. The 'future of the species' is now endangered by reckless, unbridled breeding. How unfortunate for most of us only the intelligent recognize this?
'The single factor' continue to breed without regard for the consequences and it baffles the only marginally less stupid how they can 'afford' to do this and it's because they are too stupid to even consider it...and sterilizing them remains [for now] illegal.
Sooooooooooooo, never one to be 'shy' or to back away from 'sensitive' topics. I propose we 'alter' the arrangement to something more 'agreeable' to all parties involved...and start by kicking the ones who have no business in the whole affair out entirely!
'Legal control' of all progeny is turned over to society...which will 'regulate' who can breed and how many children they can have, based largely on physical and mental...characteristics.
Marriage, as it currently exists, is SUPPOSED to protect the MOTHER of the children from feckless partners who run off chasing younger, more attractive partners...[to the point of obsession in some cases.]
Most of you are giving males the 'stink eye' right now but men aren't the only ones that suffer from 'bedroom boredom'. A good provider may not be the most exciting/imaginative partner in other areas of life and the 'point' of life is to live it to the fullest [that your circumstances allow...which for most of us ain't sayin' much.]
I do NOT call for a complete prohibition on 'lifelong commitments' but I do propose making them considerably easier to terminate and lessening [in as much as possible] the 'collateral damage' done to children during 'messy' breakdowns of something that probably never should have occurred in the first place.
Which is to propose that children, paid for by society and raised by their (fully vetted) mother with ZERO financial obligation, commitment by the father.
A powerful...er, 'tool' to hand to just one half of the population but they are the ones 'built' to raise us. Since it is their responsibility it should also be their 'choice'. [Not that they'd be stuck with it. If afterwards they determined 'motherhood' wasn't for them, they would be free to 'opt out' and let a more 'seasoned hand' assume the role.
Men are currently 'trained' to be [if the maternal force is fully realized] 'steadfast'...but males tend to 'equate' and have severe problems with female 'fickleness', often interpreting it as infidelity...which can lead to fatal consequences...all because momma 'meant well'.
It's already apparent that this post is worthy of it's own novel, the implications are too numerous to address in a brief post.
Needless to say, if we are to survive without overruning the planet's 'carrying capacity' there are/MUST BE(more than a few) practical changes to the way things are currently done.
The future of the species relies on sane management, not arcane institutions that have outlived their usefulness.
This is just the tip of the iceberg on a very ticklish subject. Get this wrong and we'll end up extinct faster than mass suicide!
Worse, if the current feckless disagree, they might make that choice for us...now there's a chilling thought!
Thanks once again for letting me entertain your neurons!
Gegner
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you can't stay on topic then don't say anything...