Fixing Marriage for Everyone

[Mr. Wrong]

Just had a thought and while it may not be original (might be though) I would be remiss if I didn't bring it to the attention of people that could do some good with it. I believe Stefan and everyone else arguing for the good in marriage and those arguing against it, namely MGTOW, are overlooking something integral to the argument. Here is the problem as I see it:

 

A committed relationship and marriage are not the same thing. Marriage is a business contract to sire and bring a child to adulthood. The relationship between the husband and wife in lieu of that contractual obligation is a free relationship and should be strictly voluntary. We actually do recognize this with no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce, which ensures that one can annul a marriage at any time due to dissatisfaction, has erroneously applied itself to both relationships. With regard to the personal relationship yes, one should be able to end the relationship without fault. It is voluntary. It is merely a recognition of our right to free association (and freedom from association). But one should not be able to annul with regard to the child-rearing relationship without fault because it is a business contract and not a voluntary relationship.

 

See the difference?

 

Thus men are choosing not to marry (and/or arguing against it) because they recognize that the contractual relationship itself is absurd and antagonizes them in it's current state. The spousal relationship in lieu children on the other hand, a voluntary long-term relationship, remains appealing though. Given that the law and most people generally make no distinction between either relationship men cannot reconcile their desire for a voluntary commitment to a partner and the business contract of marriage to sire and bring a child to adulthood. It certainly makes the entire concept of love farcical when women insist on marriage (forced obligation) to prove one's commitment (voluntary dedication). In this way they are antithetical. This lack of any distinction sullies both relationships in the eyes of men which can be best demonstrated in alimony law. First though consider that child support is a necessary and warranted punishment/insurance for breaking your contractual obligation to sire and bring children to adulthood. This is sensible (except the laws are absurd but let's pretend they are fair). Alimony on the other hand exists as a punishment for breaking the voluntary relationship between both partners. Stefan correctly recognizing this practice as immoral and akin to prostitution because it is a payment/punishment for past association. Men (and some women) correctly view this as hostile to even the concept of a loving relationship but have failed (to my knowledge) to correctly identify it as a contractual punishment for what was never truly contractual i.e. the voluntary association between both partners.

 

Therefore, my solution is to design a new contractual relationship that deals strictly with child rearing. The rest of the relationship must remain untouched by government interference and any contracts whatsoever. So for example no-fault divorce would be ended but in the recognition that the husband's and wife's relationship to each other in voluntary and divorce itself deals directly with the contract to sire and bring children to adulthood. Contracts will be drawn up dealing with child support, what warrants fault in the case of divorce, etc. The voluntary aspect of the relationship will remain unmolested. Then and only then will men choose to marry again because it makes the contractual part of marriage meaningful and sensible and also preserves the freedom of association of a loving relationship. So in essence, identify that the spousal relationship involves two relationships one of which is voluntary (personal association) and the other involuntary (through contractual obligation to raise children) and treat both separately by law and by us as well.

 

When anti-marriage people argue with pro-marriage people both are arguing at cross-purposes. Anti-marriage people are right in identifying that a marriage (voluntary association with a partner) should be strictly voluntary. They are wrong however when they argue the same position for child-rearing contracts or simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pro-marriage people are arguing that the institution of marriage is essential to child-rearing (as a lawful obligation) and are correct in that regard but are incorrect when applying that same position to the voluntary relationship between both partners. Much of this contention between these camps comes from the conflation of both relationships as the same and this is made especially difficult when the same word, marriage, is used in reference to both. If you want to extend an olive branch between both camps, to at least some in both camps anyway, this is how you do it. Suffice to say, 'marriage' and 'marriage' aren't the same thing. Until then I think any further argumentation without reference to this is going to make either side look foolish and fruitless in their efforts because both sides are as right and as wrong as the other and any people swayed by their arguments merely deepen the divide and fill their ranks with those that don't understand the truth of what's going on.

 

I hope that helps. I'll try and communicate this to the MGTOW community as well.

[J. D. Stembal]

There is actually a lot of information on forming legal contracts for non-standard family arrangements, in particular. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of help out there for straight people who desire to have relationships where the gun of the state isn't pointed directly at their gonads.

 

In the future, men may have to pretend that they are gay to have kids safely.