Post: #1

Was marriage created for the advancement of society?

Post: #2

Marriage is the bedrock of civilization.

Post: #3

(04-22-2013 01:10 AM)JayD Wrote:  Was marriage created for the advancement of society?

Dude, it was a contract between a man and a woman, which would be overseen by the womans father and agreed to before God. The man would promise to look after the woman, the woman would have his kids which he would have sole rights to. Children being as valuable as they are, marriage was valuable to men.

Dowries were in place because in some cultures, women and children were prized enough that the father could demand compensation for their daughters. In countries where they were seen as a burden, the fathers had to pay a dowry.

Post: #4

Well it was to let the community know that the groom is to take care of the bride so his resources are to be spent on her only, and the bride's body and reproduction ability belong to the groom only.

This clarification prevented conflict and confusion.

However it was a terrible trap for men since women have a short shelf life. Things are much better now.

Post: #5

Marriage in the modern era and specially in the Anglosphere, is the biggest scam there is. At least for a man. However, if you're a woman, then it's the complete opposite!

If you want to get married, remember those golden rules:
1) do not get married in the anglosphere.
2) do not marry a western, feminist raised woman.
3) if you still want to get married, marry a woman from a traditional culture/country and KEEP her there! Do NOT bring her to the anglosphere or you'll get ass raped in 2-5 years!

You may also want to read this:
/thread-8984.h...t=marriage

(04-22-2013 01:10 AM)JayD Wrote:  Was marriage created for the advancement of society?

Post: #6

JayD, do you think there is another way to create and advance of group of humans instead of marriage?

I am assuming that marriage - in your question - refers to monogamous, life-long commitment between one man and one woman, with one of the primary goals of the union to be raising children.

I cannot conceive of another way to ensure male commitment, mitigate female hypergamy and provide social stability in the way of humans who not just depend on each other, but also love each other.

Post: #7

yes

Post: #8

(04-22-2013 01:34 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  JayD, do you think there is another way to create and advance of group of humans instead of marriage?

I am assuming that marriage - in your question - refers to monogamous, life-long commitment between one man and one woman, with one of the primary goals of the union to be raising children.

I cannot conceive of another way to ensure male commitment, mitigate female hypergamy and provide social stability in the way of humans who not just depend on each other, but also love each other.

It took me awhile to realize it.
Thank you.

Post: #9

Guys, if gay guys are trying to get married, do you think the institution is outdated?

I think that when gays get to it, it's probably outdated and kitschy (which a lot of them love).

Marriage is right up there.

Post: #10

(04-22-2013 01:45 AM)soup Wrote:  Guys, if gay guys are trying to get married, do you think the institution is outdated?

I think that when gays get to it, it's probably outdated and kitschy (which a lot of them love).

Marriage is right up there.

I do think that you are right - in the sense that gays waited until heteros pissed away the power of the institution before they demanded access. They think they are transgressing against conservative values when those values got abandoned years ago. Like showing up to a party when everybody is already passed out.

In the short term, marriage is an institution that only serves women's interests.

In the long term, it must be revived in order to preserve any form of social order. The Mosuo are not a society that matters.

We can really only afford the lifestyle we do right now because of wealth and technology.

Post: #11

Gay marriage is an assault on power.

if homosexuals were after reciprocal property rights, entitlements to pensions, etc, then civil unions would have sufficed.

They particularly want the label 'marriage' as to be put on equal terms with religous groups, for no other reason that to disempower religious groups, whose conservatism has been a traditional foe. Once married, so f*cking what

Historically marriage was something that institutionally pair bonded a man with a women, with the prospect of dire conseeuqnces of breaking the bond.

This was a measure to minimise the chances that betas didn't get cuckholded, but it also ensured that a low value woman, i.e. post-menopausal, who was the least valuable member of the tribe, didn't get abandonded for something younger, hotter, tighter. The ceremony was about a woman's submission to a man, that she would succumb to his leading force.

Now, well its a fancy dress party that locks in the value of a pussy for ever. Alimony, based on providing a custom of living she is used to?

WTF?!?!

The ability to provide a high standard of living is a facet of attractiveness in a man to a woman. if she is no longer overall attracted to him, I do not see the rationale to acess to the attractive part obligation free... keep the upside was also reducing his attraction for future mates as half of it disappears. Alimony should come with reciprocal conjugal entitlements.