i never did support marriage partly because of how it has become such a religious practice, and partly because if gays/lesbians/transsexuals can't get married, why should i?
well i recently got married. the man i married doesn't support marriage either, but he's in the army, and for him to get the pay he needs to support us and for us to get such benefits as his insurance and KNOWING IF SOMETHING'S HAPPENED TO HIM, we needed to get married.
so i guess my question is this: was it immoral for us to get married since neither one of us really supports the institution that is marriage.
**(we love each other very much and wouldn't want to live our lives apart. whether we were legally married or not, we would spend our lives together as though we were. i'm asking about being married by the court, not common-law)**

Views: 138

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think that you made the right choice legally, To me marriage is about love and no longer has anything to do with religion. Or at least shouldn't matter if it does or not. You love each other so I think you did the right thing.
As most said before, I don;t think it's immoral, but practical. You get to reduce taxes, get some security in case something happened to your husband and you and many other benefits. I also plan to get married for those reasons. But never to formalize my union before god, hell no. That, I think, is nonsense, a show for the friends and family and a total waste of money.
No, you say that you love the man and whether you have the legal paperwork or not is irrelevant. As for your personal belief that marriage is immoral, I think you have to accept in this situation that a legal marriage was needed.
thanks :)
I don't view marriage as a religious practice, in itself, any more than eating kosher food or burying the dead: it can be a religious practice to religionists who use it as such, but it is also something that many can and do participate in purely as a civil practice.

It is not immoral in the least, in my opinion, that you got married. There is nothing wrong about your being able to get married. I think that it was wrong that you were forced to include a god as a witness in a civil ceremony, but there was no wrongdoing on your part. I also think that it is a great injustice that gays are not permitted to get married--not that you are, but that they are not. I think the answer lies in correcting that injustice, though, rather than removing marriage as an option for any who decide to marry.
Stay married for as long as you think you need it. It's no big deal. Take what you can legally get.
I suppose I have some pretty deeply entrenched feelings about marriage; if you were interested, I could refer you to some literature resources that might help you make up your mind a bit more, or just out of pure interest in the subject.

I like Nerd's point about survival, and it is well worth it's own consideration. In fact, to further her point, one might, as an orthodox Jew, believe it is wrong to eat certain foods: however, place said Jew in a starvation scenario and give them only these immoral foods to eat. They eat or die. Or if you perhaps were a Marxist, to such an extent that you gradually evolved a hatred for money as a symbol of the inequalities and tyrannies of capitalism: do you just not spend or use or earn money? Here, that's going to equate to death. So.... I for one do not choose to be married; it is not an impetus on me (not yet at least), and I can survive without it. I also do not see the need to bend or bow to the government just because it chooses to acknowledge/support marriage; I am perfectly capable of managing my own social relationships, without the government's sanction. Of course, again, there is something to be said for utilitarian reasoning, which is what I believe you banked on in your scenario with your military spouse.

Initially, it seems that it is in the best interest of the government, for social stability, to support marriage, as a civil contract and institution. Heuristic reasoning tells us that marriage should cut down on the incidence of (potentially violent and destructive) quarrels between potential suitors for access to the opposite sex for breeding and/or hedonistic purposes. It also creates a closed system known as the family (and by closed system, I mean it is self-contained, self-sustaining; the way I use the world "closed" here bears no relation to how people can or cannot get in or out of the family). And so the institution of family is supposed to create stability by ensuring that children will grow up to be holistic, cared-for, well-rounded citizens who are ready to perpetuate the next generation. Within family, principles of morality and civic virtue can be imparted and passed along; it also (supposedly) cuts down on juvenile crime, as well as the need for foster care and welfare by uniting economic potentials. And I say supposedly because I am admittedly murky on what they intend it to function as or how they intend it to function, and its reality or what in actuality it winds up doing or preventing. I don't think it necessarily wise to simply assume that just because someone says that marriage does X, Y, or Z (when they would be better off or more honest in asserting that it INTENDS to do X Y and Z), that it ACTUALLY does them. We have seen marriage falter within the past 60 years, we have seen it on a downslope (Read: "A" downslope, not "THE" downslope). So it may be the case that it will only serve to function as well as how we treat it or intend for it to function; that is, marriage sure ain't what it once was, and the statistics show that. Though I also would not say that marriage is in some sort of "crisis" as some religionists have said before, or that marriage is in danger of being outmoded. It will continue.

Pedagogic, pundit, pseudo-intellectual bastard that I am....
Actually, you did the right thing for survival purposes, but yes marriage is a bad institution. Period.
Being a military spouse myself I cannot imagine following my SO around the world every three years without being married or in a civil union. The relocation costs alone would be a heavy burden. Then changing jobs every three years and still trying to maintain health benifits at the same time without gaps. I don't think you did anything immoral at all, you acted out of love and neccesity. :)

I sometimes have the same thoughts as you about marriage. In our society there are so many inequities surrounding marriage it's no wonder many seek to avoid it all together. I look forward to a time when there is no benifit legally, and or finacially to being married. As free people we should be able to share our time and assets with whomever we wish... period.
oh fidelity
fogging what we hold dear



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Loren Miller posted a status
"Going tabling this afternoon for FFRF / NOFS this afternoon at Cleveland's Ingenuity Fest. Usually a fun time!"
32 minutes ago
Ted Foureagles replied to tom sarbeck's discussion Trump's Speech at the UN's General Assembly. Helpful or Harmful? Entirely So or Partly So?
1 hour ago
Randall Smith commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
3 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Daniel W's group Quotation Of The Day
4 hours ago
Robert Lanktree commented on Little Name Atheist's group Atheist Ailurophiles
7 hours ago
Patricia posted songs
8 hours ago
Patricia commented on Richard C Brown's group learnerscoffeeshack
9 hours ago
Plinius commented on Richard C Brown's group learnerscoffeeshack
9 hours ago

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service