Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rupella

What beloved institutions do you disagree with?

Recommended Posts

I don't believe in marriage. If the couple is a natural fit, then legal obligation is an unnecessary bureaucratic procedure. If the couple is not a natural fit, then legal obligation is unjust and likely to create problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The civil institution of marriage creates a form of legitimacy in the culture and helps to cement the concept of monogamy. It also provides people with financial incentives to forge stronger relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe in marriage. If the couple is a natural fit, then legal obligation is an unnecessary bureaucratic procedure. If the couple is not a natural fit, then legal obligation is unjust and likely to create problems.

You can marry someone without involving the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The civil institution of marriage creates a form of legitimacy in the culture and helps to cement the concept of monogamy. It also provides people with financial incentives to forge stronger relationships.

Financial incentives... that sounds kind of soulless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
Financial incentives... that sounds kind of soulless.

Out of all Wesker said, that's the only thing you read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
I don't really care about "legitimacy," it's a subjective idea. Same with the value of monogamy.

Do you disagree that relationships are important in a society?

*runs to break out old sociology text book*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the first post, I agree but only about legally marrying. Though I still would because I live in a culture where it is expected. But marraige is not just a legal matter.. Adam and Eve where only married because God said they were. So A legal ducument in my mind does not define marraige. Most married couples dont even take marraige seriously. I think two people can be married without going through the legal process because God defines marriage. If a man and a woman are faithful have monogomy and faith in God and stay faithful for the rest of their lives that bassically is marraige in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Financial incentives... that sounds kind of soulless.
Out of all Wesker said, that's the only thing you read?
Why do you think same-sex couples want the status of "marriage." It is a symbolic social expression.
I don't really care about "legitimacy," it's a subjective idea. Same with the value of monogamy.
Post-structuralism has its uses, but sometimes you have to think like a structuralist. People create social institutions because those institutes have a social function (think Èmile Durkheim). Public sector support is not necessary, but the social sector does not take care of everything on its own. It's the same way tax breaks for children are not necessary for families to exist, but it creates a socio-legal narrative that encourages having children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you disagree that relationships are important in a society?

*runs to break out old sociology text book*

I disagree that certain forms of relationships are to be privileged arbitrarily, at least without real justification.

Why do you think same-sex couples want the status of "marriage." It is a symbolic social expression.

No, it's because they want to be treated as equals to heterosexual couples. The fact that same-sex marriages have such high divorce rates rules out the idea that marriage itself is particularly important. I feel it's misguided, like their desire to be in the military, but I can see why they think like that.

Post-structuralism has its uses, but sometimes you have to think like a structuralist. People create social institutions because those institutes have a social function (think Èmile Durkheim). Public sector support is not necessary, but the social sector does not take care of everything on its own. It's the same way tax breaks for children are not necessary for families to exist, but it creates a socio-legal narrative that encourages having children.

What is that function? "It exists because it encourages monogamy" is very circular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a history buff and catholic, it makes me sick of the disorder and corruption that went on in the Vatican and Church itself during it's reign of gargantuan power in the older centuries. It does not reflect as much as modern times, since the Pope these days stands as a cultural figure more than a political mastermind, but the history of my faith does make me question the Catholic institution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social security. Entitlement programs for the elderly are stupid: poor young folks should not pay for the medicines of Bill Gates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you disagree with marriage?. Does it mean that you disagree to God's decision? don't you know that God honors Marriage? >.<

He made the Marriage as covenant for each couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ No, he means that he doesn't think that the government should recognize marriages or do anything to promote/regulate them over any other living arrangement/lifestyle whatever. This means no regulation on who (either same of opposite sex, 1 or 20 people) you 'marry' (in the eyes of God and each other alone, or without God as I'm not positive but I don't think rupella is christian) except what the couple can agree upon. Not in love. Divorce. Want to add another wife? As long as its good with the first go for it. That kind of thing. He's talking about marriage as a social, not religious or supernatural institution. In his eyes, if a couple beileives that life long monogamy is what God wants, their more than likley to have at it. But the goverment isn't involved.

Granted, I don't agree with him. But your missing what he's saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×