A Discussion On The Concept of Marriage & Promises

This is a transcript of a discussion from my Discord server.
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

AMP3083
VIDEO – Why getting a marriage license is the worst decision a man can make: https://youtu.be/5CUoG5V540A

Abdul
Without government getting involved, a real “marriage” is simply a common law marriage—simply two people agreeing to be with each other for the long term.

If there’s a couple that lived together for a long time, and even had children together but never “officially” got married, they are by common law (common sense) standards “married”.

I think we all need to reconsider what “marriage” even means…

Benzzzy
Legal/social approval to fuck and get kids and a huge waste of money.

BastardChris > Abdul
“If there’s a couple that lived together for a long time, and even had children together but never “officially” got married, they are by common law (common sense) standards “married”.”

Bullshit. Projecting your kindergarten games on others doesn’t make it real or true.

Absent childish games and word play all you have is: “two people agreeing to be with each other for the long term.”

What does it mean when two people agree to something? Why pollute it with abstraction?

Abdul > BastardChris
Please re-read the following: “I think we all need to reconsider what “marriage” even means…”

BastardChris > Abdul
No re-reading is necessary. Speak for your self. Perhaps you need to drop the childish terminology and describe what you think it (an agreement between two individuals) means without non-sensical terms or phrases that include the word “law” or “marriage”. Psssh.

Abdul > BastardChris
So by your attitude anarchy means chaos if enough people believe it?

The “essence” of marriage need have nothing to do with government and “law” (even though it may been tainted by them). What is the term given for a long term relationship that looks like a marriage? I would simply continue referring to it as a marriage. Nothing childish about it.

Got any better words?

bbblackwell
I agree that “marriage” is two people agreeing to be with each other for the long term. I also agree that this is a negligible (if not utterly absurd) concept.

What does this even mean?
”I’ll stay with you even if I don’t want to”?
”I promise to always want to stay with you”?


These don’t seem like valid or desirable foundations for agreement. Plus, obviously, if the other person was trying to kill you all day long, you would leave; so this “agreement” doesn’t ultimately count for anything (nor should it).

Promises of any sort are false appeasements for the insecure mind. At best, they’re a statement of present intent, having little-to-no bearing on decisions made in the unknowable future.

BastardChris > Abdul
I used the word “childish” not to convey an attitude but to convey that by adding words beyond “two people making an agreement” that can only add ambiguity and introduce pre-existing infantile phantasms is in fact childish.

It’s childish to use the word “marriage”—not to mention reinforcing it with “common law” or “common sense”)—when the foundation of the idea that two people need each other is childish. Believing you can promise yourself to someone is childish and a also a false belief in legitimate slavery.

Like you, I’m merely seeking “better words” to help refine my thoughts, positions, logic, and rhetoric. Finding them will require asking the right questions—preferably without polluting or distorting the thoughts with inadequate “childish terminology”.

BastardChris > bbblackwell
“Promises of any sort are false appeasements for the insecure mind. At best, they’re a statement of present intent, having little-to-no bearing on decisions made in the unknowable future.”

I think these may be the “better words”!

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
I have would have to disagree with the notion of “promises of any sort are false appeasements”. I think that fits life-long promises grounded in emotion, such as marriage, as opposed to shorter-term. A 30 year mortgage is a long promise that encompasses an unknown future but, many people keep and complete it, insecure mind notwithstanding.

Abdul > BastardChris
There’s a reason why I asked you to re-read the following: “we all need to reconsider what “marriage” even means…”

All you’ve done is bring your pre-existing beliefs about what “marriage” means. Your current conception is what’s “childish” (by your own words), not what “marriage” could be.

The need to redefine what marriage means (or is) was part of the point of my post. “Common law marriage” is a real thing (it’s essentially marrying without a marriage license/without getting the state involved). Common law is sometimes synonymously referred to as “common sense”, these are simply prestablished ideas, I haven’t introduced anything new so far (I only mentioned this to reveal that “marriage” does not necessarily have to have anything to do with the state).

I believe this word has been tainted by the statist masses, similarly to how “anarchism”, “morality” or “God” has been tainted from their true essence and meaning (and glory).

If you look up the word “marriage”, you immediately get the statist/legal definition:

1) the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).

There’s also a secondary definition:

2) a combination or mixture of elements.

I think the second definition is truer to what marriage is supposed to mean, and is far more objective (but more on this later).

The most “childish” view on marriage imo is that marriage only counts if you get married via the state/register for a marriage license. The stars and planets don’t magically align once you get a marriage certificate; all it represents is a threat of violence (via the state) and the implication that a union between two people is only “valid” if it has been “blessed” by “god-vernment”. As fellow anarchists, I’m sure everyone here will understand the absurdity of this definition.

Marriage is supposed to be a formally recognized union by the community. What the state has essentially done is take stead of the community (yet another form of theft) and has perverted the idea with legal based chains. The original video (posted above) is a criticism of this legal definition of “marriage” (it wasn’t entirely critical of the idea of marriage itself).

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I agree there’s a difference between a marriage and a mortgage—so much so that I wouldn’t classify a mortgage as a “promise.”

A mortgage is usury backed by threat of violence. It does not require a promise. Promises are for when there’s no viable means of enforcement, which lays fertile ground for the insecurity that inspires one to seek some alternative measure of assurance.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
I guess you are blissfully unaware of the violence associated with a marriage promise not kept and the viable enforcement of it. Btw, ever hear of a promissory note, ie: a mortgage?

A mortgage is not itself usury. Usury is interest charged.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Is there such a thing as a mortgage without interest? Plus, money itself is an inherently exploitative medium. And calling the note “promissory” is just another example of the ubiquitous euphemization that clouds the minds of men.

You’re right about marriage when considering it as a legal construct. I was referring to the personal agreement between people without consideration for that aspect. Many don’t choose to exercise force upon dissolution, though if its treated as a contract, then it’s no longer just a promise (though the two often accompany each other).

Contract implies enforcement, and further purports to morally justify that punishment. A promise alone does not carry these same implications.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
Yes, there are mortgages without interest. Promissory simply means a promise to pay which is not a “ubiquitous euphemization”. That and the rest of your comment is your opinion.

ⒶMP3083
Not to derail the conversation. I saw Juan’s last comment and wanted to ask: What is opinion anyway? Are opinions subjective? Can some opinions be objective? Can some opinions be based on facts?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Perhaps I should have been clearer. An agreement is different from a contract. Contract doesn’t imply enforcement, more like expresses it. Contracts, being legal things, usually set out conditions for failure to perform with an agreed-to settlement. An agreement, although less formal, does imply an agreed-to enforcement for performance. I agree a promise, in general, does not imply any agreed-to enforcement. Marriage being more of an agreement with co-mingled “assets” are treated as such in equity when the partners can’t reach a dissolution agreement. Pre-nups are agreements that address dissolution without “force” needed, hopefully.

It would be nice if everyone who gives their word would keep it. But human history has shown us differently.

I think opinions can be subjective, objective, based on facts or beliefs. That’s my 2 cents worth.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
A promise (personal, stated assurance of successful future execution of current intent) may be accompanied by a contract (formal statement of terms, and intent to enforce an agreement), but it is not necessarily so. This is one distinction between these two things, but not the only one.

Obviously there is a difference between a promise to attend your birthday party and a contract to pay for services rendered. The bank doesn’t need you to promise, it only needs you to agree to the terms. A promise is an emotional assurance, which is unnecessary when there is collateral and violence available.

If you think this is merely my opinion, you are defining “promise” in a way I am not intending or familiar with. I think we’re just arguing about alternative uses of words, not about core concepts. Words are used with latitude, often purposefully, for deceptive effect.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
I agreed with your characterization of promise in my last comment.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Ah yes, sorry, missed that one.

Join our Discord community!
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
Let’s have a LIVE chat!

1st BITCHUTEhttps://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
2nd BITCHUTEhttps://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
FACEBOOKhttp://www.facebook.com/ampthirtyeightythree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s