Freedom of consequences (for some) has been the most successful democratic campaign in human history. Don’t like that you have to coexist with another person per your own decisions? We’ll vote for us and we’ll not only make it happen, we’ll force the man to pay you for years while you get passed around like a free pack of cigarettes at a party.
Probaby one of the reasons men are more likely to stay in a bad marriage than divorce. The woman has no real incentive to push through issues when she can get cash and prizes with zero fault of the husband.
Dude, they'd been saying that since the liberalization of divorce laws that came about more or less at the same time as Vatican II, I think.
Dunno about the USA, but in Canada, common-law is recognized. And what's worse than a loyal couple living common law (if you're somehow against that concept and think a piece of paper or a church service is somehow necessary or magic) is actual married couples who cheat or have an "open" relationship, which makes the whole idea of "marriage" a mockery. And don't get me started on how silly the fucking wedding industry has become. Anyone with half a brain should just elope and use the money they save on the wedding on a goddamn house.
which makes the whole idea of "marriage" a mockery
Marriage was a mockery from the moment it ceased to be an agreement made with God and became a government recognized tax scheme.
Heck, we can go back further and say marriage was dead the moment a bunch of hedonistic "artists" started hyping up "passion and romance" as the most important part of couplehood.
The modern conception of "love" is actually a nightmare. Love is a continual choice. Or a description of an established state of being (see Fiddler on the Roof). It is a component in marriage, but probably doesn't even crack top 5 in importance.
The concept of marriage was created because ancient humans understood that children do much better when raised by two parents rather than one, and they wanted to coerce couples into staying together. If everyone just goes whoring around, randomly producing children who have no idea who their father is, the society quickly crumbles. We're watching it happen right now.
It's manipulation, sure, but it's a necessary one. You can't just say "you have to stay together because it's the right thing to do", because ultimately very few people actually care about morality. The only way to get most people to behave is to threaten them with some dire consequence.
Heck, we can go back further and say marriage was dead the moment a bunch of hedonistic "artists" started hyping up "passion and romance" as the most important part of couplehood.
That's exactly what Romeo and Juliet was trying to present as a terrible idea.
Normalize interpreting R&J as a warning against teaching teenagers the concept of a "soul mate". They are too stupid to know the difference between love and lust, and if they think soul mates exist, they'll base their entire life around the first person to give them tinglies downstairs.
The only mistake Shakespeare made was being too subtle. So instead of the intended effect, instead 95% of people read it as a tragic story of true love between the lovingest lovers who ever loved, which is the polar opposite of what he was trying to get across.
Common law marriage was a loophole to extract money from men smart enough to avoid the government contract but not smart enough to see the trap of living with a woman for some amount of time.
live with a women for long enough (specific time varies place-to-place) and you are automatically considered married in terms of the legal system. have fun.
All in the 1960s. Sexual Revolution, the destruction of the Catholic Church, the extreme libelarization of things like immigration law, the abandonment of the gold standard. (That was technically the early 70s in the US, but the roots are still in the 60s).
The 60s were when the death blow to the West was dealt, since then it's just been a dead man shuffling forward on momentum, sometimes kicked a bit more upright by things like the collapse of the USSR which opened up huge new markets to exploit.
“Campbell: Marriage is a relationship. When you make the sacrifice in marriage, you’re sacrificing not to each other but to unity in a relationship. The Chinese image of the Tao, with the dark and light interacting- that’s the relationship of Yang and yin, male and female, which is what marriage is. And that’s what you have become when you have married. You’re no longer this one alone; your identity is in a relationship. Marriage is not a simple love affair, it’s an ordeal, and the ordeal is the sacrifice of ego to a relationship in which the two have become one.”
The problem is that it's always the man acquiescing because the legal system gives the woman unchecked power to destroy his life if he doesn't.
Freedom of consequences (for some) has been the most successful democratic campaign in human history. Don’t like that you have to coexist with another person per your own decisions? We’ll vote for us and we’ll not only make it happen, we’ll force the man to pay you for years while you get passed around like a free pack of cigarettes at a party.
Probaby one of the reasons men are more likely to stay in a bad marriage than divorce. The woman has no real incentive to push through issues when she can get cash and prizes with zero fault of the husband.
Dude, they'd been saying that since the liberalization of divorce laws that came about more or less at the same time as Vatican II, I think.
Dunno about the USA, but in Canada, common-law is recognized. And what's worse than a loyal couple living common law (if you're somehow against that concept and think a piece of paper or a church service is somehow necessary or magic) is actual married couples who cheat or have an "open" relationship, which makes the whole idea of "marriage" a mockery. And don't get me started on how silly the fucking wedding industry has become. Anyone with half a brain should just elope and use the money they save on the wedding on a goddamn house.
Marriage was a mockery from the moment it ceased to be an agreement made with God and became a government recognized tax scheme.
Heck, we can go back further and say marriage was dead the moment a bunch of hedonistic "artists" started hyping up "passion and romance" as the most important part of couplehood.
The modern conception of "love" is actually a nightmare. Love is a continual choice. Or a description of an established state of being (see Fiddler on the Roof). It is a component in marriage, but probably doesn't even crack top 5 in importance.
It basically boils down to "being able to put up with each others' bullshit while also being able to work together to run a functioning household."
Which, barring mental illness, is a choice, rather than a magic field.
The concept of marriage was created because ancient humans understood that children do much better when raised by two parents rather than one, and they wanted to coerce couples into staying together. If everyone just goes whoring around, randomly producing children who have no idea who their father is, the society quickly crumbles. We're watching it happen right now.
It's manipulation, sure, but it's a necessary one. You can't just say "you have to stay together because it's the right thing to do", because ultimately very few people actually care about morality. The only way to get most people to behave is to threaten them with some dire consequence.
That's exactly what Romeo and Juliet was trying to present as a terrible idea.
Normalize interpreting R&J as a warning against teaching teenagers the concept of a "soul mate". They are too stupid to know the difference between love and lust, and if they think soul mates exist, they'll base their entire life around the first person to give them tinglies downstairs.
The only mistake Shakespeare made was being too subtle. So instead of the intended effect, instead 95% of people read it as a tragic story of true love between the lovingest lovers who ever loved, which is the polar opposite of what he was trying to get across.
I had a really good English teacher that year.
Common law marriage? Why the fuck would I enter an agreement where the government gets involved? Why marry/elope in general?
Common law marriage was a loophole to extract money from men smart enough to avoid the government contract but not smart enough to see the trap of living with a woman for some amount of time.
live with a women for long enough (specific time varies place-to-place) and you are automatically considered married in terms of the legal system. have fun.
Well, common-law status just means your finances are officially connected for tax purposes,
Hey, I'm technically common-law myself, but we each file as singles for reasons.
All in the 1960s. Sexual Revolution, the destruction of the Catholic Church, the extreme libelarization of things like immigration law, the abandonment of the gold standard. (That was technically the early 70s in the US, but the roots are still in the 60s).
The 60s were when the death blow to the West was dealt, since then it's just been a dead man shuffling forward on momentum, sometimes kicked a bit more upright by things like the collapse of the USSR which opened up huge new markets to exploit.
“Campbell: Marriage is a relationship. When you make the sacrifice in marriage, you’re sacrificing not to each other but to unity in a relationship. The Chinese image of the Tao, with the dark and light interacting- that’s the relationship of Yang and yin, male and female, which is what marriage is. And that’s what you have become when you have married. You’re no longer this one alone; your identity is in a relationship. Marriage is not a simple love affair, it’s an ordeal, and the ordeal is the sacrifice of ego to a relationship in which the two have become one.”