|
>>
|
No. 25385
File
131795211586.jpg
- (48.69KB
, 720x480
, Yamasinisterponder.jpg
)
>>25380
It's not that simple. The administrator edit function is designed for administrators from the ground up. It lets you edit anyone's post.
On to more, or much less important matters, the state known as love. Love is not logical. That is true. However, your very life itself is not logical. There is no purely logical reason for you to be alive and live as you do. You can only apply logic to an emotional base. Your desire to be alive goes hand-in-hand with your desire to love. But that's as far as it goes. This can't be stretched into a logical argument that love and the act it leads to - breeding - is correct, you only believe breeding is correct because a long line of creatures that, by chance, were impelled to breed, produced you, probably also impelled to breed.
Even by that kind of argument, however, marriage is a mistake. The emotion of love only really lasts long enough to breed and then in a lessened state for a few years of child rearing. I'm not sure of the exact numbers. But it is certainly not something that lasts for life. The sort of love supposed to existed in long marriage is explained ad-hoc after the existence of a long marriage, and is thought not to be the same as the love that drives breeding. Marriage itself as a long-lingering thing cannot be explained by love, only the initial impetus to marry by foolish youth can be. Marriage, then, works against your very nature. Do you expect your wife not to cheat? Would you be angered if your children were not yours?
Do you expect a cat not to purr?
On top of that, marriage allows leverage for religion to worm its way into influencing mainstream society. Marriage as it is known to religion should be entirely separate from marriage known to human law. And as far as I understand, though I do not know very much, the very existence of marriage as a binding legal contract, with all its conditions, runs contrary to the immeasurable love and trust newlyweds would suppose themselves to have. Is there a reason to throw away the decision to exercise your rights as they exist in a state free of marriage, when, according to your wealth of trust and love, you would always exercise them the same way, contract or not? In that case, an external force binding you to your word has in it the implications that your word will someday need binding. Otherwise, the contract is useless. Perhaps this goes back to the days where marriage was a fitting thing to tame the lesser sex in the contract, but now when the contract is supposed to be between two legally equal sexes with identical rights, it makes no sense.
|
