Why do I hate marriage?


Have you noticed?

Whether it is the long running TV ‘comedy,’ or watching the news, marriage is HATED in America.

It is as if, marriage causes greater violence in our children, greater homosexuality in our children, violence against women, and all the other social ills.  Marriage is HATED in American media and Hollywood.

But, almost all of the HATERS get married.

Have you thought about THAT?

I don’t hate homosexuals.  But, I am not going to become one.  Yet, they hate upon traditional marriage CONSTANTLY.  They get married all the time.

Even Hilary stood by her man.


So, why didn’t they abandon each other 40 years ago?  Their daughter would have a 3 times greater chance of being ‘gay,’ a drug addict, or other messed up young lady.

BUT, THEY CHOOSE the best for their children, and try to make you and I live the WORST FOR OUR CHILDREN?

How does that make sense?

If I am for drug addiction, wouldn’t it make sense for me to be a drug addict, or drug pusher?

So, why are all the true haters of marriage, married?

And yes, I love marriage.  And the title was a rhetorical tool to get you to read … and hopefully open your mind.

Do you hate marriage?



About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Blog, Blogging, News, People, Politics, Religion, TV. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Why do I hate marriage?

  1. shaunphilly says:

    “Isn’t marriage a legal and religious definition that has stood thousands of years?”


    • Wayne says:

      To me you seem to conflate cultural with religious …. I might be wrong, but marriage has been a religious ceremony in all societies that I am aware of.


      • shaunphilly says:

        Well, culture and religion are tied in many respects. In my studies of anthropology I have a BA in Religious Anthropology, BTW), I have found that many rituals and ceremonies are not religious in the sense that we use it in our culture, but have quasi-religious qualities.

        My thesis is that religions often usurp cultural rituals, and we anachronistically view them as religious where they are primarily cultural. There were times in Western history when getting married in a church, for example, would have been unheard of. Since the Church made marriage a sacrament, religion has become associated with the ritual which was primarily secular in nature. And now getting married in a church is traditional.

        Marriage is a secular, human, ritual and tradition which has been taken in by religions over the centuries. Religion is a product of culture, not the other way around.

        There are societies in time and place where marriage is not religious. Mine, for example, is certainly not religious, as I am not religious.

      • Wayne says:


        Thank you again.

        I agree with much of what you wrote.

        However, I do not see Christianity in the same light you see Religions.

        Maybe this is true from Mormons and Muslims. But, the Church and its customs are tied not to the dominant cultures (Roman & Greek). Rather their customs of marriage are more closely tied to a different culture (Jewish). These Jewish cultural icons were NOT from the Jewish culture, they were from the Jewish Religion.

        So, how would our borrowing what was best from the Jewish Religion make those ceremonies secular?

        That would be like me saying the headscarf is Islamic, when it was Christian for centuries before Islam ….

        The sanctity of marriage came out of the Jewish tradition, not the Roman or the Greek tradition. Those traditions would have been secular.

        I guess, I do not see your connection in your thesis. I do not see the religious traditions around as taken from the culture. Rather I see them as taken from Religion.


  2. shaunphilly says:

    What I know is that the Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament at some point in the past, much more than 100 years ago. They made marriages not sanctified by a priest illegitimate. Whether people before that act thought of marriage as religious or not I cannot say.

    No, tradition is not an argument against anything; tradition is irrelevant to an argument. That fact that something has been done is not an argument for or against it.

    Are Americans dis-satisfied with marriage? I don’t know that they are or not, because I have not seen statistics on this questions. I know some are, for a variety of reasons. I am frustrated with some aspects of relationships, and how they are conceived, in our culture, but not with marriage specifically.

    I don’t see progressives attacking marriage per se. What I see is people objecting to marriage having a strict definition which does not cohere with how people really live. I see conservative concepts of marriage being criticized as restrictive, exclusive, and discriminatory.

    I see cultural shifts seeking to re-think the structure of sexual/romantic relationships, and thus it effects how we think about marriage. In the process of that re-thinking, conservative insistence upon one definition of marriage (which is not the original nor historically primary definition) is running up against newer concepts of relationships and marriage.

    How I see this is that conservatives are insisting upon a very limited idea of marriage which coheres with their parochial worldview, and they are met with resistance to this definition by people who have a larger and more inclusive view. This is not an attack, is is disagreement. I see the conservative definition as the attack on progress in how we think about relationships. We progressives don’t care how you want your marriage to be; we care that you are insisting that other concepts of marriage are not legitimate without rational justification.

    Have your marriage as it works for those involved All we ask is the same consideration. Marriage has changed again, from a property arrangement to a contract between equals) and likely will continue to change as a concept in our culture. The question is whether the idea of gay marriage, polyamorous marriage. etc are harmful or not. There is no indication they are harmful, except to conservative sensibilities.

    Yes, I think we should hope for good marriages. How good a marriage is depends on the communication, respect, love, etc between those involved, not their gender or number.

    • Wayne says:


      May I call you George Bush?

      That is just a re-definition, isn’t it? What? You say your name is a ‘legal’ definition?

      Isn’t marriage a legal and religious definition that has stood thousands of years?



  3. shaunphilly says:

    So, do you deny that at some point in history, marriage was a property relationship? You are not aware that women were considered the property of their fathers until given to a husband, whether for political, social, or economic reasons?

    And if you don’t deny this, then you have to admit that the concept of marriage has changed, and that concepts like marriage change with the process of history. We define concepts, and those definitions are related to use.

    Their is evidence of group marriage, marriage between two men/women, etc throughout history, even from ancient times.

    Also, what is traditional here is not what is traditional everywhere. What about Islamic/Mormon (especially before 1895) polygamy? Are they not traditional to them? What about traditional marriage in cultures where group/polyamorous marriage is the rule? I guess they don’t matter.

    What does Russia have to do with this? I don’t see ow whether Russia would agree with you or not changes the facts that marriage has changed, in definition, over the centuries. That is simple fact.

    The larger point is that it does not matter what is traditional, as tradition does not make something good per se. It may be traditional for you that marriage is one thing, but that does not mean it is better. Tradition is not an argument for the superiority of on concept of marriage over another, ever if it actually is traditional from millennia or centuries) past.

    The fact that the conservative concept of “traditional” marriage is actually quite recent is just icing on the cake of its absurdity.

    • Wayne says:


      Thanks for commenting.

      Don’t you admit that marriage was a religious contract in EVERY society we know of up until about 100 years ago?

      Then you must ….

      Rhetorical ploys are not arguments. Nor is tradition an argument AGAINST marriage.

      Why are Americans dis-satisfied with marriage?

      Because the progressives attack it in the media, politics, academia, and cinema ….

      Shouldn’t you agree that people should be allowed the hope for a GOOD marriage?


  4. shaunphilly says:

    who wrote my version of history?


    Please, read some about the history of the concept of marriage. Hell, start with the Bible, and look at how many wives Solomon was claimed to have had. But history and anthropology have many examples of marriage which do not conform to this “traditional” marriage. It’s a fiction, traditional only to this century, this culture, and only to conservatives.

    • Wayne says:

      I am still interested in reading your historians.

      I read the Bible, many times more than once, in several languages, including original languages.

      I would say your history is quaint in your way.

      But, it is a long way from truth.

      I just returned from the Former Soviet Union.

      They would mostly agree with ME and MY version of history.


  5. shaunphilly says:

    I don’t hate marriage; I’m, in fact, married. But what is this “traditional” marriage? Do you mean when women were property and marriage was a commercial transaction between families? Marriage is an old tradition which has been usurped by religious institutions and made into an image of one man and one woman, but this definition is actually relatively new historically) is the result of social changes itself.

    What I dislike is the privilege carried by many conservatives who think that their definition of marriage is somehow more legitimate. Marriage is a human behavior and will continue to be re-defined by the people who do it. It has changed already from a relationship about property women as property) to a social and legal contract between people who decide to link their lives together.

    The attempts to make one woman/one man as the definition of “tradition” is, frankly, irrational and on the wrong side of history.

    • Wayne says:

      Thank you for your response.

      I would be interested in learning more about your version of history. Who wrote your version of history?



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