subscribe or follow us:                    

Marriage Is An Orgy, Why Not To Marry

10 comments

Posted by PunkJohnnyCash on Jun 20, 2011 in Anarchism, Social Issues | 10 comments

Many in our society define their existence by the accomplishments of marriage, children and the accumulation of possessions. Society itself often stigmatizes those who do not marry. Women take the brunt of this; the ‘old cat lady’ is one of many stereotypes with regard to this. Men also suffer discrimination by being placed in categories that single them out as incapable of obtaining sexual conquests or being somehow inadequate unless one is unmarried and sexually active, in which case a man is praised and a woman is a ‘whore’. One’s worth is often rolled up with the institution of marriage and our sexual relationships.

The traditions of marriage are born out of patriarchy and human ownership. Currently in the United States marriage is defined by law and bureaucracy. Marriage, if it was ever a relationship between two people, is not such now. Marriage is two people and the gun in the bed. The violent power of the state has made its way into the sex lives of many who choose to follow this accepted tradition as it is. This is the tradition of transferring ownership of a woman from a father to a husband, a socialized remnant of slavery. It is in fact not a relationship of two, but a relationship of two and the state, or two and the patriarchal influence of a church. Marriage is an orgy.

Marriage is privilege

Marriage in the United States is a privilege granted by state, church and socially oppressive traditions. Those who wish to marry must fit under certain criteria. They must seek approval for their personal relationships by the powers that assert their will on others. As they say, ‘if one is oppressed all are oppressed.’ This is an area of oppression. I do not seek laws to accept other groups, although that may be a step in a better direction. I seek liberation from the powers of church and state in our relationships.

If you choose to marry you exercise privilege over those who are oppressed. I urge you to enter into mutually beneficial relationships with other human beings. I urge you to pursue monogamous relationships that are non-oppressive. I urge you to publicly express your commitments to one another in a ceremony that does not reflect human ownership. And I urge you to not exercise privilege. In solidarity with those who are locked out and treated as second class citizens,  I urge you to reject the institution of state marriage.

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • Anonymous

    Over the plate, waist high!

  • http://knowbites.com Tracy Alexander

    You hit a home run on this one.  I walked away from the whole marriage concept years ago and never looked back.  It amazes me how gays/lesbians fight for the privilege of having their “qualifications” for their relationships vetted by states, churches and society as a whole like everyone else.  What’s up with that?!!!  If you aren’t in prison, why the hell would you dig your way under the fence to get in just because the majority are locked up in there?  LOL!  It makes no sense to me.

    Don’t ever sacrifice the reality of who you are and the liberty you have to chose in the present moment simply to gain acceptance from others.  It isn’t worth the price you have to pay, believe me.  Keep your liberty to make decisions every moment of every day and love like there is no tomorrow.

    I would rather join my lifepath beside someone who is entirely comfortable with my ability to make a different choice at any time.  Prevents either party from getting too damn comfortable when he/she knows the other can pack up and move on.  But liberty also provides an aspect of daily choice that honors the one chosen in ways that institution of marriage never will.  Instead of picking your partner one time, you pick your partner every day…even on the bad days.  That’s the epitome of love.

    btw:  Using children as the excuse for keeping pitiful-broken-dysfunctional adult relationships together is unrealistic and unfair to the kids.  Often, the ugliness between parents is all the kids remember about their childhoods and the internal urge to escape their parents’ self-state-church-imposed asylum.  How healthy is that?  Given how many children grow up in so-called “broken” homes, yet have such solid support from both parents that their needs are met quite well?  There is no reason to force relationships to be anything other than what they actually are.

    • https://profiles.google.com/117841393700095586962/about Kirsten Tynan

      It amazes me how gays/lesbians fight for the privilege of having
      their “qualifications” for their relationships vetted by states,
      churches and society as a whole like everyone else.  What’s up with
      that?!!!      What is up with that is that quite a number of basic rights are denied to people who are not married, so the ability to get married is one way for people to reclaim them. For example, a foreigner who marries a straight citizen of the United States has the possibility of immigrating and living with his or her spouse in the United States. Not so for same sex partners. And if both of their home countries are similar in this respect, they may have to immigrate somewhere else entirely (assuming they are even able to do so) in order to be together.Another huge issue is that same sex partners may easily be denied visits with their spouses in medical emergencies, the ability to make decisions on their behalf, ownership of common property after the spouse’s death, and so on. Case in point: http://365daysofliberty.org/?p=44So while the ideal situation would be total separation of marriage and state, it seems perfectly understandable to me how gays and lesbians would be unwilling to wait to claim the  rights they are denied until a day which is not yet in sight for most people when legalization of gay marriage at the federal level in the United States seems to be just around the corner comparatively speaking.

  • https://profiles.google.com/117841393700095586962/about Kirsten Tynan

    What would be an example of expressing commitments without reflecting human ownership?

    • http://knowbites.com Tracy Alexander

      Perhaps adaptations of the marriage concept that instills liberty, honesty and trust as the reality of commitment between people.  Truth is, the wrapping and experience, then, is free to become whatever those involved intend and are capable of creating.

      We have the  right as individuals to choose or create our own models rather than having
      segments among us dictate and impose upon us those models that THEY have
      chosen for themselves.  To have government power added to twisted,
      false and unloving mentalities doesn’t make their original idea any more
      valid or less a violation of individual sovereignty.

      • https://profiles.google.com/117841393700095586962/about Kirsten Tynan

        I agree. What would be an example of such a model?

      • https://profiles.google.com/117841393700095586962/about Kirsten Tynan

        I agree. What would be an example of such a model?

  • https://yearemany.wordpress.com/ jamayla

     I’m currently partnered to a man and could legally marry him if I wished, but I don’t have any interest in involving the state of Missouri in my love life. Not just because marriage has been an oppressive institution, historically; but because divorce is a messy clusterfuck – few relationships are permanent, even if people start them hoping they’ll last forever.

     

    You hit a home run on this one.  I walked away from the whole marriage
    concept years ago and never looked back.  It amazes me how gays/lesbians
    fight for the privilege of having their “qualifications” for their
    relationships vetted by states, churches and society as a whole like
    everyone else.  What’s up with that?!!!

    Perhaps because they’d like to benefit from the 1300+ advantages currently afforded cisgender, het couples? Tax breaks, visiting their sick partner in hospitals or prisons, child custody issues, inheritances, and so on. 

     Granted, the enormous focus on the marriage issue in some LG’BT’ (purposeful use of quotes there; most of these people are focused on whitebread, middle-class HRC-type crap) circles is an assimilationist issue – you know, the whole “Hey, don’t be afraid of us, straight world! Look, we can be married & monogamous, too!” But that isn’t the whole picture. Imagine if, say, you were ineligible for food stamps because of your sexual orientation or gender. Yep, you might be a radical anarchist, but if you’re also a poor person with an empty fridge, you’ll be left thinking: “Damn, I can barely afford to eat because of this industrial capitalist nightmare. Can’t I be included in just this one thing?”

    That said, the gay marriage issue is very near the bottom of my list of things I care about, but I don’t dismiss it completely. There are institutions that some gays & lesbians are trying to assimilate into that actively oppress other people in very real ways (the gays in the military issue, for instance), but I don’t think this is one of them.

    • http://knowbites.com Tracy Alexander

      “Perhaps because they’d like to benefit from the 1300+ advantages
      currently afforded cisgender, het couples? Tax breaks, visiting their
      sick partner in hospitals or prisons, child custody issues,
      inheritances, and so on.”

      Great point.  There are so many inequalities embedded within our existing institutions and systemic thinking that the notion of our government imposing or supporting equality would be laughable, if the reality didn’t hurt so many of us so damn much.

      Both church and state are equally to blame, whether we’re talking about marriage laws, taxes, endless welfare or any other government sanctioned imposition of inequality.  But both church and state are reflections of the majorities’ ideas and mentalities, so blaming some nebulous power source for these impositions is an attempt to escape culpability for the damage.  It’s inexcusable.

      What we are seeing is failed mentality in ourselves as a collective that is glaringly reflected in our governments, our institutions and our religions.  Greater and greater numbers of us are sick to death of social engineering in all of its oh so sweetly coated forms.  Poison is poison.  And Karma is real.  The stench of our unloving, prejudicial and straight up false impositions upon each other has become so horrific that it cannot be ignored anymore.  We talk liberty, but think like slave masters when it comes to others.  Hardly surprising we ended up in this condition.

      As for all those who are spouting religion as their excuse, both to impose it upon some and to deny it to others, where then is the love that is lost before any vows are spoken?  To institutionalize prejudices in government and business practices is criminal, truly.  Our Constitution lays out equality that has to-date never actually existed in America.  It’s time we change that.

  • http://twitter.com/MerlinYoda MerlinYoda

    I’m married, but I shouldn’t need the states “blessing” for my marriage to be recognized by the public in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the state shouldn’t even concern itself with whether I’m single or married (or even polyamorous for that matter). As it doesn’t affect one bit whether I’m a law-abiding citizen or directly affect anyone else’s life but mine and my wife’s as long as we both enter into the union as consenting adults.

    Still, I “get” the whole spiel that the state promotes marriage so as to promote creating (i.e. procreation) and raising the next generation of citizens in a secure, stable environment but that presupposes that there are never any abusive parents in any marriage (either mother or father). It then becomes preferable in the eyes of the state through marriage laws that you not divorce and if you do, say for the sake of your child(ren)’s safety, that you find someone else to marry rather soon to in order to once again receive those benefits from the state again (although they will still give some benefits to you for the sake of the children but the state will not reward that domestic arrangement as much as the typical nuclear family model). Isn’t it better for a child beget by sexual intercourse be raised in a loving environment with either a single parent, a homosexual couple, or an unmarried but loving heterosexual couple than for them to either have an abusive parent or to lack loving parents entirely growing up for whatever reason? Naturally this is not to say that loving, married, heterosexual couples that raise and care for their own children don’t or rarely exist (they certainly *do* exist)  but, given the lack of one, the state should allow for alternate environments of fostering children in a stable loving environment by eliminating a preference towards any kind of union (or lack thereof)?

    I don’t know about some people, but I didn’t marry my wife because of the tax and other state benefits; I married her out of love and wanting to spend my life with her.