Why get married

[Stargazer]

There's a lot of talk online lately from "redpill" type podcasts criticizing marriage. They like to list all the risks involved with marriage, insinuating that it's in the best interests of men to avoid marriage. So I decided to write a little essay about why I want to be married, and why it is good for men to be married in general.

So, why get married? Is it to have a partner to have sex with? That is a reason, and I believe it is wrong to have sex outside of the covenant of marriage, whether you're a man or a woman (and I've always been taught that, for the record). But it's not the main reason. Is it to have children and have a partner to raise those children with? That's a huge reason, but again, not THE reason. The main reason transcends those things. It also transcends objections about marriage "not being worth it". That reason is found in the Bible, and it has to do with the very nature of men and women. God saw that it was not good for man, for Adam, to be alone. So, using Adam's own rib, God created a corresponding helper for him - the woman, Eve.

God knew what he was doing. What applied to Adam applies to men now. It is not good for a man to be alone. And, as Jesus taught in Matthew 19, it is lifelong, committed union, not something that can be separated. So, that is my primary motivation in wanting to be married. I recognize that it isn't good for me to be alone, so I want to find that corresponding partner for myself. The greatest interest a person can have is in fulfilling the purpose and nature God created them with.

Divorce rates and the legal system being biased against men in custody, child support, alimony, etc are sad realities in the modern Western world. They are reasons to be careful about who you choose to marry. Don't marry someone who just likes how successful you are, or how good you look, or how good you are in bed. If you don't want to get divorced, find a woman who shares the view that marriage is a sacred covenant and divorce is not an option. They exist. Black pilled guys who are obsessed with "hypergamy" need to get their heads out of their butts and stop looking in all the wrong places. A lot of guys disparaging marriage wouldn't even be looked at twice by women who are actually looking for commitment. It's the blind leading the blind.

Is it possible to competely eliminate the risk of divorce? No. You can drastically reduce the risk by having standards for who you look for in a partner. But you're not going to completely eliminate that risk. But then, there's always risks in any relationship. There's a risk that the day after your wedding, your partner could be diagnosed with cancer, resulting in your married life being very different. That isn't a good reason to avoid marriage entirely. If as a man you use statistics about marriage to spurn commitment, to burn with lust and run around having casual sexual relationships with as many women as you can, you have no leg to stand on. You're worse than the women you disparage.

As a last note, someone might say "I'm fine with marriage, I just don't want the government involved". Well, then you're not going to actually get married. The authority of government is what gives the covenant of marriage between two people actual reality. Two people can't just hold hands and say "we're married" and expect that to be reality. You can do it in front of witnesses, but you still need an authority to recognize what the witnesses saw. That authority is the government - and that's fine. The hyper libertarian approach to relationships and marriage is also poisonous, because it's really an abandonment of any real commitment and union between partners.

 

[King Arts]

There's a lot of talk online lately from "redpill" type podcasts criticizing marriage. They like to list all the risks involved with marriage, insinuating that it's in the best interests of men to avoid marriage. So I decided to write a little essay about why I want to be married, and why it is good for men to be married in general.

So, why get married? Is it to have a partner to have sex with? That is a reason, and I believe it is wrong to have sex outside of the covenant of marriage, whether you're a man or a woman (and I've always been taught that, for the record). But it's not the main reason. Is it to have children and have a partner to raise those children with? That's a huge reason, but again, not THE reason. The main reason transcends those things. It also transcends objections about marriage "not being worth it". That reason is found in the Bible, and it has to do with the very nature of men and women. God saw that it was not good for man, for Adam, to be alone. So, using Adam's own rib, God created a corresponding helper for him - the woman, Eve.

God knew what he was doing. What applied to Adam applies to men now. It is not good for a man to be alone. And, as Jesus taught in Matthew 19, it is lifelong, committed union, not something that can be separated. So, that is my primary motivation in wanting to be married. I recognize that it isn't good for me to be alone, so I want to find that corresponding partner for myself. The greatest interest a person can have is in fulfilling the purpose and nature God created them with.

Divorce rates and the legal system being biased against men in custody, child support, alimony, etc are sad realities in the modern Western world. They are reasons to be careful about who you choose to marry. Don't marry someone who just likes how successful you are, or how good you look, or how good you are in bed. If you don't want to get divorced, find a woman who shares the view that marriage is a sacred covenant and divorce is not an option. They exist. Black pilled guys who are obsessed with "hypergamy" need to get their heads out of their butts and stop looking in all the wrong places. A lot of guys disparaging marriage wouldn't even be looked at twice by women who are actually looking for commitment. It's the blind leading the blind.

Is it possible to competely eliminate the risk of divorce? No. You can drastically reduce the risk by having standards for who you look for in a partner. But you're not going to completely eliminate that risk. But then, there's always risks in any relationship. There's a risk that the day after your wedding, your partner could be diagnosed with cancer, resulting in your married life being very different. That isn't a good reason to avoid marriage entirely. If as a man you use statistics about marriage to spurn commitment, to burn with lust and run around having casual sexual relationships with as many women as you can, you have no leg to stand on. You're worse than the women you disparage.

As a last note, someone might say "I'm fine with marriage, I just don't want the government involved". Well, then you're not going to actually get married. The authority of government is what gives the covenant of marriage between two people actual reality. Two people can't just hold hands and say "we're married" and expect that to be reality. You can do it in front of witnesses, but you still need an authority to recognize what the witnesses saw. That authority is the government - and that's fine. The hyper libertarian approach to relationships and marriage is also poisonous, because it's really an abandonment of any real commitment and union between partners.

Why not what gives the government "authority" it simply has power. But if some other group took power they would be the new government and the former loyalists would have no authority.

 

[Stargazer]

Why not what gives the government "authority" it simply has power. But if some other group took power they would be the new government and the former loyalists would have no authority.

It's just the reality of the situation. If you think you can just hold hands with someone and be married like I described, why don't you try it and let us know how your life turns out.

Also, God is the one who gives authority to rulers/governments, it's not just about power.

‭‭Romans‬ ‭13:1‬ ‭ESV‬‬
[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Hyper-libertarianism, or rather anarcho-libertarianism, is both anti-marriage and anti- Christian in general.

 

[King Arts]

It's just the reality of the situation. If you think you can just hold hands with someone and be married like I described, why don't you try it and let us know how your life turns out

Are you talking practically? There are practical bennefits that marriage gives like being able to see your spouse in the hospital
and inheiritance. There are some places that have common-law marriage where you get those just by "holding hands with someone and living like you are married."

In the eyes of God? Well if you go to a Church get married there then you are married regardless of what the Government says. As a Christian you should still do that because we are called to obey the Government as long as it does not order us to go against Christianity. But if you discovered some island that was full of natives would you say that no one there was married because they did not have a government?

Also, God is the one who gives authority to rulers/governments, it's not just about power.

‭‭Romans‬ ‭13:1‬ ‭ESV‬‬
[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Hyper-libertarianism, or rather anarcho-libertarianism, is both anti-marriage and anti- Christian in general.

God gives authority to rulers because they have power. Look at history and the background of what Paul was saying. He was talking about obeying Caesar and those Caesar appointed. Who is Caesar then? The direct answer at the time Romans was written was Nero, Emperor Nero inherited power from Cladius, who got it from Caligula, who got it from Tiberius, who got it from Augustus the first emperor. He legitimized himself by claiming descent from Caesar. The same Caesar who launched a coup betrayed and overthrew the Republic which was the legitimate government of the time.

How do we interpret this? Is Paul saying the descendants of Caesar are the only ones who have legitimacy? No is he saying only monarchies have legitimacy and not Republics? Also no, he is saying for Christians to not rebel to obey WHOEVER IS THE GOVERNMENT. The government is defined by who is in power, so a Roman who converted to Christianity couldn't rebel against Caesar to "restore the Republic".

We can point to America also the founding father's rebelled against the King the king who was the government at the time. Any Christian who was part of the revolution was in grave sin. Yet the rebels won and became the new government can a group of Christian form an army to overthrow the U.S. republic to "restore the monarchy"? No that would be a sin. This however does not mean that the current U.S. government has eternal legitimacy from God, yes Christians rebelling now would be in grave sin. But if a General decided to rebel against the Government get rid of the constitution and decide to make himself emperor if he won then he would be the government and Christians must obey him and not those who are for the constitution. The only question is when does a rebel no longer become a rebel but a government? And when do loyalists no longer become the government but are bandits and rebels themselves. That is the question a Christian could debate.

Also anarcho libertarians are anti Christian because they are hyper individualists, not because they are questioning the legitimacy of a government.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

It's just the reality of the situation. If you think you can just hold hands with someone and be married like I described, why don't you try it and let us know how your life turns out.

Also, God is the one who gives authority to rulers/governments, it's not just about power.

‭‭Romans‬ ‭13:1‬ ‭ESV‬‬
[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Hyper-libertarianism, or rather anarcho-libertarianism, is both anti-marriage and anti- Christian in general.

God tells us to obey powers and authorities because he's the God of Peace and Order not chaos and bloodshed which is where 99.99% of revolutions end up going not because he's pro-king or pro-emperor. In fact, when the Israelites said to God they wanted a King rather than the elders and judges God appointed them, he tried through Samual to persuade them by telling them why Kings and Kingdoms were a bad thing and all the evils that'd be done by the kings against the people and when the people would not budge God comforted Samual by saying that the people were not against Samuel but against him. At best Kings have just been tools to help fulfill God's plan, just like he uses all tools regardless of how unideal they are. Also When the centurions tried to torture Paul unlawfully Paul invoked his rights as a natural-born citizen and it was not considered Sin, so no the people with the bigger sticks are not the end all be all nor are they above their own laws.

As for Marriage itself. Many hardcore Christians follow the rituals they do specifically to separate government from the church. it's unofficially seen that one of the abilities of a decon/priest/brother is to bear witness and to officialize the holy union. Once a couple solidifies their vow by saying "I do" and the priest says "I know pronounce thee." it's essentially the closest thing to God saying it himself. Edit: It's also why many will not marry Homosexual couples or people with still-living spouses even if they are lawfully divorced (Though the latter is less common) Because according to their understanding of scripture. God would not recognize such a union and to recognize such a union in God's name would not only be illegitimate but blasphemous.

So who would keep Christians together if Daddy government wasn't around carrying his big stick? Easy, the church would with Christ (Not the Pope) as the head.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I'd also like to point out that most libertarians are not pure Anarchists who want no government whatsoever (However tempting it might be sometimes) What we want is limited decentralized government and a (Natural and nonviolent) return to the community. The idea of the individual states forming a collision in theory at least isn't that different than the tribes coming together.

 

[TheRejectionist]

I would have made only exception (my parents relationship doesn't really encourage me towards it) one lady of the many I have been in 28 years of existence : my Turkish friend.
And it wasn't even my own culture.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

I might as well give out my points on why anyone should NOT get married at this point, until the problems surrounding men and women in general has to be fixed.

While from a moral and natural viewpoint, marriage is something that would ultimately lead to the creation of a new family, as long as you have a good chunk of feminist activists thinking that screwing men over is a great revolutionary act, you will have a reaction in men choosing to literally go their own way. Let's also discuss the potential financial levy that will arise out of divorce settlements, and the child support that comes along with it as well. The divorce courts are biased against the men, and divorced mothers who will become single mothers at this point will be entitled to the money their ex-husbands earn for themselves and their children. In my personal case, having a set of parents who divorced and seeing the infidelity of my own father is a valid reason why I would personally not consider marriage at this point.

 

[mandragon]

In a vacuum being in a monogamous marriage is demonstratably good for both yourself and society. Yet in the current legal,social,and political climate in the West doing so simply isn't a wise decision for a mam. So paradoxically being married for an American man is simultaneously the correct moral postion but practically the incorrect decision.

 

[Stargazer]

Are you talking practically? There are practical bennefits that marriage gives like being able to see your spouse in the hospital
and inheiritance. There are some places that have common-law marriage where you get those just by "holding hands with someone and living like you are married."

In the eyes of God? Well if you go to a Church get married there then you are married regardless of what the Government says. As a Christian you should still do that because we are called to obey the Government as long as it does not order us to go against Christianity. But if you discovered some island that was full of natives would you say that no one there was married because they did not have a government?


God gives authority to rulers because they have power. Look at history and the background of what Paul was saying. He was talking about obeying Caesar and those Caesar appointed. Who is Caesar then? The direct answer at the time Romans was written was Nero, Emperor Nero inherited power from Cladius, who got it from Caligula, who got it from Tiberius, who got it from Augustus the first emperor. He legitimized himself by claiming descent from Caesar. The same Caesar who launched a coup betrayed and overthrew the Republic which was the legitimate government of the time.

How do we interpret this? Is Paul saying the descendants of Caesar are the only ones who have legitimacy? No is he saying only monarchies have legitimacy and not Republics? Also no, he is saying for Christians to not rebel to obey WHOEVER IS THE GOVERNMENT. The government is defined by who is in power, so a Roman who converted to Christianity couldn't rebel against Caesar to "restore the Republic".

We can point to America also the founding father's rebelled against the King the king who was the government at the time. Any Christian who was part of the revolution was in grave sin. Yet the rebels won and became the new government can a group of Christian form an army to overthrow the U.S. republic to "restore the monarchy"? No that would be a sin. This however does not mean that the current U.S. government has eternal legitimacy from God, yes Christians rebelling now would be in grave sin. But if a General decided to rebel against the Government get rid of the constitution and decide to make himself emperor if he won then he would be the government and Christians must obey him and not those who are for the constitution. The only question is when does a rebel no longer become a rebel but a government? And when do loyalists no longer become the government but are bandits and rebels themselves. That is the question a Christian could debate.

Also anarcho libertarians are anti Christian because they are hyper individualists, not because they are questioning the legitimacy of a government.

On further consideration, you have a point and I probably overstated the authority of government. The government doesn't define marriage, and government isn't necessary for marriage. However, as long as you are living under the law of the land, you have a moral obligation to follow it (unless it directly conflicts with higher moral values and commands from God.). If your government does regulate marriage by law, it's important to follow those laws. You personally thinking those laws are unfair and biased is not justification for you to reject and ignore them.

I might as well give out my points on why anyone should NOT get married at this point, until the problems surrounding men and women in general has to be fixed.

While from a moral and natural viewpoint, marriage is something that would ultimately lead to the creation of a new family, as long as you have a good chunk of feminist activists thinking that screwing men over is a great revolutionary act, you will have a reaction in men choosing to literally go their own way. Let's also discuss the potential financial levy that will arise out of divorce settlements, and the child support that comes along with it as well. The divorce courts are biased against the men, and divorced mothers who will become single mothers at this point will be entitled to the money their ex-husbands earn for themselves and their children. In my personal case, having a set of parents who divorced and seeing the infidelity of my own father is a valid reason why I would personally not consider marriage at this point.

This is kind of going off the assumption that if you get married, you're going to get divorced eventually and will have to deal with the biases in divorce law and family court as a result. That's not a given. Divorce is avoidable, and the key to avoiding divorce is finding a woman who holds herself to a transcendent moral standard and fundamentally does not believe divorce is an option.

Now, if you can't find a woman like that, no one's demanding that you get married to a subpar woman. It can take time to find the an available woman who meets that standard, who is also attracted to you. It may also require change and self -improvement on your part in order to be attractive to such a woman. And not just material, financial and physical self-improvement, but also emotional and spiritual self-improvement.

If you're not up for making those sorts of changes, again, no one is demanding that you get married. But the reality is that at that point you're "going your own way" because of personal shortcomings in yourself that you're unwilling to change, not because of problems with all women and the society around you.

My parents divorced after it was revealed that my dad had a long history of infidelity while he was married to my mom. I don't see that as a valid reason for me personally to avoid marriage.

In a vacuum being in a monogamous marriage is demonstratably good for both yourself and society. Yet in the current legal,social,and political climate in the West doing so simply isn't a wise decision for a mam. So paradoxically being married for an American man is simultaneously the correct moral postion but practically the incorrect decision.

And this is going off the assumption that marriage is about "practicality" in the first place. It's not.

 

[ParadiseLost]

This is kind of going off the assumption that if you get married, you're going to get divorced eventually and will have to deal with the biases in divorce law and family court as a result. That's not a given. Divorce is avoidable, and the key to avoiding divorce is finding a woman who holds herself to a transcendent moral standard and fundamentally does not believe divorce is an option.

Reality is that divorce is strongly correlated to life circumstances.

For example:

Dancers, masseuses, bartenders, and casino workers all have massively higher divorce rates. Gee, I wonder why?

Farmers, optometrists, and clergy all have massively lower divorce rates.

For dudes, if you are really terrified of divorce:
Marry someone with a similar religious background
College educated (but not more educated than you)
Asian if possible (Black or Hispanic women also tend to have lower divorce rates with white men than white women do, but research is much more mixed)
Ideally either your age or no more than a few years younger
Immigrant if possible
Fiscally responsible

Also, obviously, actually care about and pay attention to your wife.

 

[Stargazer]

Reality is that divorce is strongly correlated to life circumstances.

For example:

Dancers, masseuses, bartenders, and casino workers all have massively higher divorce rates. Gee, I wonder why?

Farmers, optometrists, and clergy all have massively lower divorce rates.

For dudes, if you are really terrified of divorce:
Marry someone with a similar religious background
College educated (but not more educated than you)
Asian if possible (Black or Hispanic women also tend to have lower divorce rates with white men than white women do, but research is much more mixed)
Ideally either your age or no more than a few years younger
Immigrant if possible
Fiscally responsible

Also, obviously, actually care about and pay attention to your wife.

Ehhh. It's one thing to look for a partner who shares your religious beliefs and values. It's another to look for a partner of a specific race because they're statistically less likely to get divorced. That starts to turn finding a wife into a game of statistics, and that strikes me as not being the way to have a healthy relationship.

You should want to find a partner with shared beliefs and values for multiple reasons, not just because it lessens the likelihood of divorce. In fact, that only really helps if for your part you hold beliefs that elevate marriage as a sacred vow and reject divorce as an option. If you don't hold those beliefs, finding a partner who shares your beliefs won't really work to restrain her (or you) from seeking a divorce when things get rough in the relationship.

Thinking you can game the system through things like the race, or the culture, of your partner - the whole "passport bro" trend - is emblematic of what I mentioned before: a reticence to look inward and reflect on what you can do to improve about yourself, emotionally and spiritually. Trying to manipulate all the external factors without addressing your internal character and spirit is like trying to get comfortable in bed while you have a cancer growing inside you. You can have the plushest sheets in the world, it's not going to solve the problem.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

One other potential problem that goes well with the passport bro phenomenon would be that if let's say, more Western men decide to go to the Philippines to find local wives, then there wouldn't be any women left for local men to get married to. This would also be the case for other countries that are now hosting the passport bros as well.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Yeah I don't think that will happen soon or at all. There are more ladies in those countries that there are passport bros.

 

[Stargazer]

Yeah, the societal impact on the local supply of available women isn't really something I'm concerned with. I'm more talking about the best approach to finding a good wife on the individual level.

 

[TheRejectionist]

I can recommend Turkish ladies (unless they bring up the Armenian genocide without your input, like my second Turkish ex did, so nope out because it is going to be ugly), most actually try to learn English and always feel the need to improve : lots of them rather date foreigners because lots of time they are going to be an actual improvement to lots of Turkish men (regardless if secular or not).
Though (likely) the parents of the girls are going to be asking, as soon as it is official as you are "dating" and "boyfriend and girlfriend", when you are going to get married and have kids.

 

[Poe]

I can recommend Turkish ladies (unless they bring up the Armenian genocide without your input, like my second Turkish ex did, so nope out because it is going to be ugly), most actually try to learn English and always feel the need to improve : lots of them rather date foreigners because lots of time they are going to be an actual improvement to lots of Turkish men (regardless if secular or not).
Though (likely) the parents of the girls are going to be asking, as soon as it is official as you are "dating" and "boyfriend and girlfriend", when you are going to get married and have kids.

counter point: my good friend married a girl from Turkey, brought her to the US etc. After a year or so she wanted a part time job "to get out of the house," six months later he found out she cheated on him with some loser at her work.

 

[TheRejectionist]

counter point: my good friend married a girl from Turkey, brought her to the US etc. After a year or so she wanted a part time job "to get out of the house," six months later he found out she cheated on him with some loser at her work.

Yeah one of the three Turkish girls I dated dumped me and the same week was with someone else.

1 out o 3 though ain't bad odds.

Still shitty what happened to your friend.

 

[King Arts]

Yeah one of the three Turkish girls I dated dumped me and the same week was with someone else.

1 out o 3 though ain't bad odds.

Still shitty what happened to your friend.

It seems like America and its toxic culture is the problem, you can go to another nation to get a good girl. But unless her values are rock solid like religious, then when she gets to America she’ll get corrupted into whoredom.

 

[Stargazer]

It seems like America and its toxic culture is the problem, you can go to another nation to get a good girl. But unless her values are rock solid like religious, then when she gets to America she’ll get corrupted into whoredom.

You realize you're just as subject to being "corrupted" by the culture, right?