Your Political Beliefs

This is your friendly neighborhood Boot! Most people in this thread have been great, debating civilly and respectfully even when disagreeing strongly. Not only does this make the Boot very happy (because the Boot doesn't have to step on anybody who follows the rules!) but it also is a sign of good, mature debate of which you all should be proud. Some of you, and everybody knows who you are, are instead attracting the Boots attention in a bad way by being trolls. Trolls get stepped on by the Boot and the Boots friends in higher places. If you see a troll (usually recognizable by being, well, a troll) please do not feed them. Feeding trolls validates their existence and puts you in danger of violating the rules. Instead, please ignore them yourself but make a report so that the they can be dealt with by the mod staff.

Thank you all again for engaging in such vibrant debate no matter which side you are on!
 
ReeeFallin said:
I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm not gonna change for some esoteric obligation crap.
Click to expand...

Reading up on the history it was less esoteric obligation crap and more like a kind of business deal.

Men agreed to support a wife and their children through their most vulnerable years agreed to take care of said wife when she lost her looks in old age, and in return the woman gave up her sexuality and the products of said sexuality AKA children.

As systems go were talking about one that worked for over 3,000 years through out several continants, several cultures and an incredible amount of legal systems. That things are not working now means that maybe we should start treating marrage more cynically and maybe go back to treating it more like a business contract then some thing to be romantasized.
 
Cherico said:
Reading up on the history it was less esoteric obligation crap and more like a kind of business deal.

Men agreed to support a wife and their children through their most vulnerable years agreed to take care of said wife when she lost her looks in old age, and in return the woman gave up her sexuality and the products of said sexuality AKA children.

As systems go were talking about one that worked for over 3,000 years through out several continants, several cultures and an incredible amount of legal systems. That things are not working now means that maybe we should start treating marrage more cynically and maybe go back to treating it more like a business contract then some thing to be romantasized.
Click to expand...

Alternatively i'd prefer to marry someone that actually cares about me rather than someone who just has money,
 
Not all lessons from history are good ones. Humanity as a whole is designed to continue developing and moving forward.

I look forward to the day when marriage is universally accepted as something to be done with love and care rather than necessity and duty.

I for one will never marry a woman for anything but love. Even if I happen to have a happy accident (none yet that I am aware of), I will not marry.
 
Ioseb Jughashvili said:
Alternatively i'd prefer to marry someone that actually cares about me rather than someone who just has money,
Click to expand...

I will note that the concept of 'love' in marriage is historically fairly recent. In fact, it didn't exist in the West (and I don't believe it existed anywhere, but am not certain at all about it) until the Catholic Church declared that no marriage could be valid without the willing consent of *both* parties. Before, marriage was purely about societal advantage, not 'love'. That requirement that both the man and woman consent to the marriage opened the door to Medieval concepts of 'Love' which persist to this day.
 
Throughout most of history, marriage was used to sew alliances between noble families and nations. Marrying out of love is a new concept to human civilization.
 
Quickdraw101 said:
Throughout most of history, marriage was used to sew alliances between noble families and nations. Marrying out of love is a new concept to human civilization.
Click to expand...

Things are more complicated then that.

Were talking about a period of time that comprises thousands of years over an entire planet and were also not taking things like class, wealth, and culture. Marrages for love did happen its just that practical concerns were often more important because life was harder back then.
 
Cherico said:
Things are more complicated then that.

Were talking about a period of time that comprises thousands of years over an entire planet and were also not taking things like class, wealth, and culture. Marrages for love did happen its just that practical concerns were often more important because life was harder back then.
Click to expand...

Love and passion have always been elements in marriage, we can see that from traditional marriage in cultures which are still traditional. They were just not as prominent -- especially among the aristocracy. Do we really think peasants from villages didn't include it? Of course they did, even if "your grandmothers think you would work out well together" was the driving force, part of that was certainly how well a couple got along.
 
screen-shot-2019-01-09-at-11-17-25-pm-png.2748


Welp, I think I might be a tad to the left. What do y'all think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top