\
LSTEST STATS

ONLY 53% OF MARRIAGES FAIL.
that means you got a good chance o lasting if you get goin twice! odds are in yr favor ha

it's more than a piece of paper.

I don't ever intend to get married. I don't like the idea of having government sanctioned love. marriage creates another system of privileges and rewards for
those who follow societal norms. Plus, the institution of marriage has historically been a mode of trading women for things. So fuck that shit.

it's so ridiculous that people on this board will defend fucking a fucking blow-up doll, yet people being married is stupid and outlandish.

ok.

let's talk about the married people on this board. the robot and i have been married 13 years. savage clone and his wife... 19? something like that. how about gmku? who else is married?

marriage... how uncool.

I don't think that marriage is uncool. In fact, marriage seems to be a pretty "in" lifestyle choice. If you choose to get married, good for you! However, marriage is not something that I value in my life. And it is completely fair to point out that the institution of marriage has historically (and continues to be) oppressive. I personally want the freedom to be able to fall in and out of love and relationships as are healthy and fit. As person who is against marriage (not that I could even get married in the first place...unless I moved to, say, Iowa) means that I am going to have to continue to defend myself and my life style.

the argument is fucking retarded. it's one thing to say you don't personally agree with it... that's fine. it's another to put down the whole thing.

and maybe people wouldn't have to fuck blow up dolls if they had a wife.

why wouldn't i put down the institution of marriage when it has historically been extremely oppressive? i'm glad that it works for you and others on this board. i know others who are happily married. but still, marriage does mean that you benefit from heterosexual privilege. i hope you recognize that.

sexuality is about desire and fantasy. there are plenty of monogamous people who still use sex toys/sex dolls/jack off to porn and it's not because they aren't in a healthy relationship. in fact, it's healthy to be able to give yrself pleasure. i'm in a monogamous healthy relationship w the person who i assume i'll be with for a good number of years to come and i still masturbate often. i have no shame in admitting that. it's part of what makes our relationship work.if i was into sex dolls, i might masturbate with sex dolls. sex dolls are a huge turn off for me though so i dont do that.

Fucking stupid.

Nobody offended you girlgun for being married. However, you are getting on us for disagreeing with it/choosing against it. Most people in the world will wind up getting married, those of us who can't or just plain can't or won't for political/solidarity purposes are a scarce minority. I really don't think that any of what I wrote is "fucking stupid" being as there is shitloads of historical evidence to prove my point.

have
you
got
the
#for
a
good
blowup
doll?

sorry
couldn't
resist.
broke
keyboard
&all.

I was reiterating the argument was fucking stupid. Jesus.

My initial point was that it just seems lame that everyone has an open mind and thinks everyone can do as they choose until it comes to something traditional. I don't give a flying fuck if it's not right for someone, but it may be right for someone else. There were plenty of blanket statements up there which I mentioned, fiendgirl, you did not make. I sincerely appreciate sway's nice reply. I just think if people are going to claim to be so opened minded..then show it.

For the record. I never thought I would marry... Never planned on it. I'm married. It's great.

welcome to the sonic youth forums girlgun.

anything 'sacred' or 'traditional' will not get you pitchfork points.

you should probably make a thread where you make fun of the bible if you want them to respect you again

yippee

Comments like this one make we wonder if you are making an argumentum ad populum by accusing another of reverse argumentum ad populum, or a reverse ad populum by accusing ad populum.

And then I remember that, by either case, it's complete nonsense.

your avatar is making me nauseated

I have no idea what most of you are talking about half the time...

just remember that i'm the most radical out of all of you

It's hip to be square!

how the fuck did a costume party thread get turned into some fucking idiotic debate on marriage?

wait, I don't wanna know.

now you're catching on.

but hey, don't tell anyone. they have to find out on their own

Pitchfork is pretty hip-to-be-squarish, isn't it?

what? no. fail.

socially conservative, fiscally conservative, blue-collar, family-oriented, traditional, pro-life. this is the new hip. embrace it

Maybe it's just ironic hip-to-be-square.

But isn't all hip-to-be-squareness essentially ironic?

I'd rather be square.

not surprised.

being hip isn't easy, otherwise everyone would choose it.

Hope you don't mind me calling you hipster, then, hipster being so fucking hip.

sure. i've earned my stripes

Bringing it back, y'all.

oh.my.god.you.people.



everyone should be allowed to do wtf they want and that includes getting married. if you wanna, great, if not, great, who cares, whatever, dont sit here and hate on people who do.

TOLERANCE.
it goes both ways guys.

As with many such debates, the issue of confrontation lies within confusion over the meaning of "marriage." I believe notyourfiend was criticizing the genealogy of marriage as a socio-economic institution, as per her typical Foucauldian vantage.

However, in rebuttal, marriage should not be solely defined by its social and legal expression. To interpret girlgun, marriage is legitimized by being a practice that precedes social norms and legal privileges. In essence, a couple joined in marriage are so in virtue of being joined above all else. To them, marriage as an institution is secondary.

LOLLLLOOLO NEG REP ROFL XD


sheesh.

From my side of the ocean it appears to me that notyrfiend is more against the formal 'procedure' and therefore rocognised ecconomic benefits/restrictions/allowances that come with being married, because it is descriminatory and not something which is available to ALL types of couples.. rather than being against the idea of people who choose to make a life commitment to someone...



just sayin.

no but that is the point, it isn't available to all couple's who would like to partake in it, and so it is and can be extremely descriminatory legally financially etc..

yes and i agree with this. it's people getting all radical about it that i can't deal with.

gays should be able to get married with the same benefits as straight people. or perhaps the whole system should be done away with and marriage should be about love.

When I was getting government benefits as a student a couple of years ago, I had to fill out a few forms regarding my financial status, living arangements, etc.

One section basically read:

"Do you live with(spend more than 3 days a week) someone of the opposite sex? If yes, what is their yearly income? "


It didn't matter HOW MANY women/same sex people I might be living with, and what they were earning. To the govt, those details are irrelevant. Yet I am judged on the assumption that I may be in a supportive relationship with someone just because they are of the opposite sex. Because same sex relationships aren't legally recognised, they DONT MATTER.

It is ridiculous.

in what way?

it's rude and often intolerant shitspewing

like i said, it goes both ways.




this is like talking about abortion.

I don't care if people want to get married/not. I do care how unfair it is that some people who wish to, cannot. They are different discussions. imho.

lol abortion.