Marriage and Society

[RWStanding]

Marriage and Society
It has been stated that, marriage laws are fifty years old and need to be modernised for the 21st century. This is pure political rhetoric. There is no implicit virtue in either age or modernity. The real question is what fits the society we espouse, rather than the society that happens to exist. Or perhaps fashion is all that defines society today. As ever the question is best related to the basic forms of society, which itself is a prior question. If we are in a world in chaos, then there is no marriage only lust and nature. If we have a modicum of law and social convention then there are three ways that can be defined. Marriage may be effectively a duty to the state or its ‘god’. In which case it is consonant that a couple should be joined together for life, as a duty. If we live in a anarchistic society of personal and family autonomy, then what couples [of any sex] do is their private business, and their children must take pot-luck or go to the workhouse [as it were]. If we live in responsible altruist society then marriage is a social institution and contract. No doubt it must be backed by state law in the absence of strong social convention. The social contract is minimal for the couple themselves, but must be strong as respects their children. Couples that would by nature be man and woman, being expected to stay together while their offspring are children, even though the couple may sleep apart. It would therefore be a last resort that the children become divorced from one or both parents. Society, in the latter case, would be obliged to foot the bill of care. The idea that all parents know best for their children, and are morally responsible, is more political rhetoric.

[-1-]

This is like your other post, "society and the person".

We can look forward to more in this series:

"Society and Work"

"Society and the Banking System"

"Society and Goldfish"

"Society and the Penitentiary System for Repeat Offenders"

"Society and Education"

"Society and the Turing Test"

"Society and Other Societies".

Leave no stone unturned.

[-1-]

Marriage and Society
It has been stated that, marriage laws are fifty years old and need to be modernised for the 21st century. This is pure political rhetoric. There is no implicit virtue in either age or modernity. The real question is what fits the society we espouse, rather than the society that happens to exist. Or perhaps fashion is all that defines society today. As ever the question is best related to the basic forms of society, which itself is a prior question. If we are in a world in chaos, then there is no marriage only lust and nature. If we have a modicum of law and social convention then there are three ways that can be defined. Marriage may be effectively a duty to the state or its ‘god’. In which case it is consonant that a couple should be joined together for life, as a duty. If we live in a anarchistic society of personal and family autonomy, then what couples [of any sex] do is their private business, and their children must take pot-luck or go to the workhouse [as it were]. If we live in responsible altruist society then marriage is a social institution and contract. No doubt it must be backed by state law in the absence of strong social convention. The social contract is minimal for the couple themselves, but must be strong as respects their children. Couples that would by nature be man and woman, being expected to stay together while their offspring are children, even though the couple may sleep apart. It would therefore be a last resort that the children become divorced from one or both parents. Society, in the latter case, would be obliged to foot the bill of care. The idea that all parents know best for their children, and are morally responsible, is more political rhetoric.

This was again a pretty good essay. No loose ends. Well done.

[gaffo]

Marriage and Society
It has been stated that, marriage laws are fifty years old and need to be modernised for the 21st century. This is pure political rhetoric. There is no implicit virtue in either age or modernity. The real question is what fits the society we espouse, rather than the society that happens to exist. Or perhaps fashion is all that defines society today. As ever the question is best related to the basic forms of society, which itself is a prior question. If we are in a world in chaos, then there is no marriage only lust and nature. If we have a modicum of law and social convention then there are three ways that can be defined. Marriage may be effectively a duty to the state or its ‘god’. In which case it is consonant that a couple should be joined together for life, as a duty. If we live in a anarchistic society of personal and family autonomy, then what couples [of any sex] do is their private business, and their children must take pot-luck or go to the workhouse [as it were]. If we live in responsible altruist society then marriage is a social institution and contract. No doubt it must be backed by state law in the absence of strong social convention. The social contract is minimal for the couple themselves, but must be strong as respects their children. Couples that would by nature be man and woman, being expected to stay together while their offspring are children, even though the couple may sleep apart. It would therefore be a last resort that the children become divorced from one or both parents. Society, in the latter case, would be obliged to foot the bill of care. The idea that all parents know best for their children, and are morally responsible, is more political rhetoric.

today due to femism, there is a danger for males to marry, lose 1/2 of thier wealth, their kids, etc.......when the divorce happens (today 57 percent of marriege end with dad losing 1/2 of $ and his kids too).

marriage is now good for women and bad for men, and as the demographics change (now more women have higher ed degrees and man less/ and less $$$)- young women - valuing men of "Standing" are not finding them, and so remain single. which is ok for the men IMO - since more than half will end up lossing all anywhy if they get married.

its a sad situation all around.

best to remain single as long as you can IMO. MGTOW is not around for no reason.