First, a big Happy New Year to all my readers! I am glad that at least a few cats and dogs (meaning I think I'm good friends, but has confused me) still stick around and fall into the agony of reading my childish, whimsical pieces, but as always, objective to please.
I think it is suitable to start the year by having a little fun and take off the dark shadows of 2008, beginning with a serious subject like marriage. It is a fact that exactly 3.1415965% of my readers are very smart, intelligent, handsome and wonderful people, which means that a large number of very thick there, so I'll save you the trouble of declaring me angry piss advance that this is a satirical work.
It is also quite appropriate that today is the day of the wedding of the girl that I once had devoted two years of my life chasing, so I dedicate this work to that *****, and I wish I you and your husband-to-be a happy marriage happy. Oh, I forgot to mention that I thank you not to send me your wedding invites, so I sent a nice email letting me know your wedding a day before asking me if I received your invitation? You must die so that I went to your wedding ceremony, but I have not received. Too bad.
Anyway, let's start with small pieces of dissection and dismantling of the institution of marriage and to challenge the myth that marriage is, or should be the "ultimate goal" coveted by all. Below I will explain why I think he is wrong, immoral and should be illegal.
Negative stereotypes singles
When it comes to irritate me, surely mothers know best. Other moms to be. Although my mother is not perfect, we are in perfect understanding not even harp on the idea of getting married - she knows better. Unfortunately, there seem to have that same luxury offered to me by other mothers. It always seems that this new momentum for married women over a certain age that prying into the affairs of the young men who are old enough to marry. And this custom is not limited only to people I know, even aunts lunch at the deli where they feel it is their responsibility to take me to work. I do not understand is that they are so consumed in the misery of being bound to his own marriage, you are so interested in getting my vacuum so? I shall assume that is so, and while I'm at it, "ha, ha!"
What is social peer pressure in action at its best. It has given me, a young and attractive , the manly man and unmarried, is heresy! The company sets the standards that all men and women ultimately productive, you should seek the objectives of marital bliss.
The same company does not take kindly to the unmarried, the divorced, widowed, or any other permutations or forms that are present. For all other married people, who are seen as a liability. Well, thanks for nothing society! They argue that singles do not do their part, in mature economies such as Australia and Singapore, childbirth is considered patriotic and national service a way to reset the birthrate declining. Individuals are individuals who are more selfish society, consume more frivolous activities and give nothing in return. In this regard, we are slapped with higher taxes as our grief. Almost makes it seem as if a bunch of conniving slippery snakes that come out of the dinner without having to pay the bills at every opportunity.
But no, we paid our dues as another other in society, so why should we bear the burden of these unfair perceptions? If we are as misfits who need to be burned at the stake, if the same applies to those who suffer the misfortune of being a widow, or when you become elderly, children or the infirmed, as they have either not yet contribute to the society at all?
Discrimination, in this case for singles, is a bunch of bullshit.
Marriage is an act of (no) faith.
I had once or twice to go to dinner with friends to see old couples at the tables next to the celebration of its 10th anniversary, 20, a feat more impressive, though bittersweet. It would have been much more impressive if they were to celebrate their union of years together without being married.
Although this type of union is laudable, the idea of the marriage certificate is hypocrisy. It is more than just a union contract that is used as a resource. Ironically, considering all the mistakes of this contract as a witness to their union. Such is the fact that this piece of unglamourous role is simply to serve as insurance protection against the event due to end a marriage in crisis, will serve as the basis of an agreement. Think about it: if everybody had been so confident about the certainty of their union, the idea of marriage is outdated.
Most people view marriage and singleness as a dichotomy, and often the segregation of the two as the "haves" and "poor." I disagree. There is no evidence indicating that the coupling without marriage is better or worse, and neither does being single become detrimental to the person. The glamourisation of marriage is not different from the beauty industry, a small circle of people who dictates and the idea spread to the masses, until it sticks in the head, becoming the dominant meme. And why not? A shitload of industries are created to deal with his vanity, as a whole shitload of labor is created from 10 minutes of bliss!
Anyhoo, all remaining detractors and fervent supporters of marriage, which spins around me otherwise - marriage is only for couples who are weak in their commitments, just looking to satisfy their own psychological insecurity. I'm sure it hurts! I am not stating as fact, but with a case why he should not issue a summary trial just because some people do not share their views. Take it as a taste of his own medicine, and learn to let others be.
Unrealistic ideals of marriage
An article of faith among men with whom I discussed these issues (and an idea ignored, if not contested, by most women I know) is that the hunger for sexual variety is a basic and natural impulse, and more or less irresistible. "I have not seen anyone who does not comply with all the individual demands of your sexuality makes on them. We make the mistake of thinking that some people have a stronger will not do," says a friend with vision. "There is no more natural principle of social organization than sexual exclusivity.
- The affairs of men, Philip Weiss
The quote was taken from an article in New York, which stirred some controversy and condescension. I was very amused when Philip Weiss was invited to show Stephen Colbert and Colbert satirized when he publicly called him a prick or a jerk. I can not remember which was the most, as I was choking with laughter, not to mention that the word got bleeped out * TV.
Oddly reminiscent of the segment was, the idea of strict monogamy is one of the key reasons why I think the institution of marriage is flawed. 'Strict' in every sense of the word, do not get bored of sex with the same person, not having a wandering eye, or may not have even a hint of desire to any other woman or man, besides your partner.
The loyalty that is expected of women, and to a lesser extent men, is in the form of the disparity of the differences in gender widespread sexual impulses. Indeed, this disparity in expectations have not materialized reality should not be. Therefore there is no reason to believe that the trend away varies among individuals, but not necessarily along gender lines. But the variance is important and what we should focus on.
The concept of marriage, therefore, a common shoehorns idealistic but unattainable, perhaps, that both genders attempt to join. The truth may be more than the prudishness of monogamy is only attainable by some, but not others. Certainly reasonable is the idea that if a man loves you, will have no attraction to another woman, and the same for women.
A simple thought exercise would have proved my earlier point: if I'm attracted to Angelina Jolie (I'm not Brad, can breathe a sigh of relief), does that suddenly make all the other beautiful women unattractive?
Most women allow these minor transgressions that house men to women, these little fantasies are harmless, but certainly if they act these fantasies, you always take a break. But transgressions are sins, and infidelity is infidelity, physical or not, something I learned from a woman. (I think it's a bit psychotic, but it sure is not relevant in this discussion!) However, I know many who are willing to nod and forgive transgressions, and still maintains the same high ideals in their minds! It is beyond my surprise to learn that sometimes people can not see the dissonance between what they say what they do!
If the marriage ensures strict adherence to fidelity, that I can say with absolute certainty that all marriages are a farce. So why try to enforce the unenforceable?
Marriage as an established belief
Just because it established belief does not make it right. I'm sure Galileo would have agreed with me.
Although society has imposed certain notions about the idea of marriage, which is beyond the ideas conveyed by the words of the certificate itself, but spread through shared beliefs. For example, in Singapore, even if they are legally married, the marriage can be annulled if the couple have gone through the traditional wedding ceremony (at least for the Chinese that I know), and are not considered officially married until their parents officially acknowledge to be the case. Even when they are issued with a legal piece of marriage certificate, the cancellation is easy. There is no required separation period is as if you have not been married before.
Marriage as a tradition is a concept that should be abolished. I'm not saying that the benefits of civil partnership rights should be abolished, but only to untangle the mess with the unfortunate that we have created by linking with ugly concept called "marriage." As romantic as can be, even gay couples to be desired, is merely a disguise very low below a ugly enforce obligations pushed to you, not the trophy of glory that many people seem to have associated with.
On the other hand, marriages should not be tied to religious values at all, and moreover, not only a religion in itself, like the Judeo-Christian, which I think should remain in vogue throughout my life. If the world de-evolve back into the ancient monotheistic Europe, not just gay marriage is outlawed, lone parents and couples without children are also at risk of being criminalized. Simply return to the same stench of discrimination against other groups in favor of one.
There is no such thing as a conventional idea of marriage. Deal with it.
The need for marriage as a requirement for delivery
There is always the misconception that it is necessary to marry to have children. How did you even come? Having children is the process of our biology, it is certainly not a process of the law! The desire for children is derived outside the scope of any legal framework. The law is there only to code, and not vice versa. If we were to legislate the ban undoubtedly be mocked freely much as it did during Prohibition. I do not think we've learned that it is useless to fight against human nature.
Seriously, do not encode the obvious. I hope Nike does not sue me for violation of trademark, but "Just Do It" (if you want)!
To legislate marriage for procreative sex, often spells death for lack of sexual reproduction, either in form or substance (Ask Raymond). Has not been established that human beings can always be monogamous creatures, and of course there are plenty of examples around the points otherwise. If society is strongly advocating the marriage of their ideals that cause friction - while many are in accordance with the rules and control their impulses to stray, others can not (or not!), Which leads to marriage without sex or deviate behavior. If I had to be otherwise, divorce lawyers have gone bankrupt long ago! I think what we have to aim, it is the ideal of marriage, but a plurality of options.
The intention for marriage is good, just bad
Many, and I mean many, are oblivious to the fact that a certificate of marriage is not just a piece of legal document - a contract with certain obligations to be fulfilled, as the responsibility of having children if you wish. This is a part I'm happy to see the regulation, although parenting is legislated as an innate human behavior that is monogamy, it is my firm belief that I even come close to stamping an absolute guarantee on .
I like the civil aspect of marriage, but it's just that I want to see how like any other contract - which can be written by people who are willing to enter it, instead of this ugly one size fits all template that does not . Sometimes looking forward to how California gays are fighting for the same symbolic value of marriage. I actually thought how gay couples are getting the best deal and actually fighting for something worse! Perhaps it is that the grass is greener on the other side, and they are green with envy, pardon the pun. To press for the same symbolic value of marriage a man and a woman enjoys, not much, really.
There is no tangible value in symbolism - they make no profit from this that a civil partnership does not cover, but only for a marriage in name. That irritates the religious fanatics, of course, given that the idea of marriage as a culture continued in the western world is strictly dictated by the Church, and the one Church.
No wonder that Christians are upset - it could also make rewriting the entire Bible - instead of Adam and Eve, Adam and Ben have in place! (Or Ben and Jerry, mmmmh!) Instead of trying to obtain approval of the current workforce, homosexuals should start your own religion in place. Let's call it "Protestant 2.0". Give a dozen centuries and have everyone take as gospel roll up! Sometimes not even have to take a long time - just look at the Church of Scientology, if you know what I mean. Listen to homosexuals, if you take the idea, know that you heard it here first from me - and I think Carson Kressley from 'Queer Eye' will make a great preacher!
If I pull this argument of the beard a little more, what happens when we begin to examine our relationships with robots? I read that Robert Downey Jr. was caught supposedly doing it with a robot 'Iron Man', which must have been pretty fun I've seen the show. And what about aliens? In any case, I am in favor of a civil partnership - men, women, transgender, asexual, carbon, silicon or whatever it is based, as long as all parties are consenting.
What the rich hate the poor greed
I do not see why there is so much enthusiasm on both sides of the divide poor to have this discussion about marriage: one to maintain status quo, and the other for editing. Many of the wealthy, somewhat wiser (?) Persons actively tries to avoid the risks of marriage, but sees it only as a necessary step to gain social legitimacy. However, in defense of it, using a legal entity called a prenuptial agreement, which is a unique American invention. Moguls, like Donald Trump, meanders through the death trap of marriage by enacting such prenuptial agreements. (Although I am not an expert, the subject of a prenuptial agreement has always been a fascination, lit by a law professor knew it was a true shadow, as well as Alan Shore).
It's too bad that violates the maxim of "going against the spirit of the law" in most common law countries, which means that a prenuptial agreement is thrown completely out the window when challenged in the courts - which has almost sense of being American should have become a Gazillionaire!
But at least if you are in Singapore, unlike the English common law countries more, there is no de-facto legislation for the rights of domestic partners, which makes things balance. Of course you can get all the thrills no frills in a cohabitation agreement, but certainly does not mean your girlfriend lives can actually get mad at you once you start hitting the big three-O!
I think ultimately, we must re-institute a civil marriage. Current laws that provide benefits for man and woman in marriage, such as tax exemptions, joint income tax reliefs, co-sharing the benefits of health insurance, or other diverse systems, should be entitled to all who want to be in it. Additional rights, such as having children (not just your account biological, yet adopted) should be implicit or explicit, after justifying the means for it, and perhaps after a period of education of the responsibility of having a child .
I've said enough about to marry deter, not to think and reflect on what I have written. Do not take for truth, but please be welcomed to! Especially if it happens to a girl who I dig, and intends to marry someone else! :)
In all likelihood, all my thoughts, maybe one day they will become the victim of my own ridiculous, and be like Charles Darwin, who had once written a list of pros outweigh the cons when considering marriage but "what the hell, they still went anyway. But at least for now, why I am intelligent, charming, and still single!
But if people really want, where you "(a word stealth) is opposed to the" need "I do not see why we should not let them get married anyway. For example, how Peter Griffin so succinctly puts it: "I say we should let them marry and be miserable like the rest of us!"
If you got this far after reading all crapolata, and felt that my points are compelling enough to at least do a double take, I'll pay you before you part of what I believe is the true essence of the association. Married or not, you should love your partner as he or she - marriage is just icing on the cake. With or without it, the taste of the company is as good (or bad!)