What are you wearing today?

[Sombre]

Zamb, I disagree. If you had said there will always be a need for monogamy I would agree. But there has never been a need for a binding legal agreement to spend your life with someone. You probably mean marriage in a religious sense, but right now marriage is more of a legal institution than a religious one.

[lowrey]

but it is to be made clear that a wedding ceremony and a marriage are two different things, and one needn't have a ridiculous wedding ceremony in order to have a wonderful marriage

this.

There seems to be a whole lot of generalization and dumbing down going on. like I said earlier when this massive derail was just about to begin, there are as many types of weddings as there are people getting married. I can't believe we are actually discussing this following someone's attire to a wedding presumably no one else here went to or knows anything about (except Mike's grandpa).

I think he's just saying that's a symptom of a bankrupt institution he's not interested in upholding.

it is what you make of it

[zamb]

Zamb, I disagree. If you had said there will always be a need for monogamy I would agree. But there has never been a need for a binding legal agreement to spend your life with someone. You probably mean marriage in a religious sense, but right now marriage is more of a legal institution than a religious one.

I am not talking in the religious sense, I am talking in the pragmatic and logical sense
there are a whole lot of benefits that are in marriage, at least when its respected, that dont exist outside of its boundaries

Also the upliftment of monogamy and the downplaying of marriage is really weird to me.
there is a part of me that wouldn't have minded being a polygamist, but then, that have a set of problems I wouldn't want to deal with.

If one is going to be in a committed monogamous relationship, why is there a reluctance, or at least a downplaying of the legal aspects of it?

[AKA*NYC]

i for one have very much enjoyed this tangent, i think the sort of stuff really makes this forum worth reading, amongst other things. i'm not sure whether discussion on these subjects can ever be found anywhere else.

probably not and for good reason

[gavagai]

tried out my cdg drop suit at a family wedding upstate... definitely had to answer a lot of questions... best comment was from an older gentleman who said "i love your pants, looks like something my grandson from new york city would wear."

It's all T=Bone's fault. How dare he...If he had only worn some dockers none of this would have happened.

[t-bone]

Or, say, Undercover crust pants, for that matter?

[orphée]

^^as far as the Undercover trousers go, they don't really show much flesh when standing up....it's more of the frayed Mummy-leg effect that might turn a few heads

[Macro]

the idea that the institution of marriage is outdated is bull crap, marriage had been around since the existence of human beings, and so long as human being exist there will be a need for marriage.

can't let that slide, Z. I know we disagree on certain things, but please do a fact check on this. There were many, many, many generations of humans that existed without marriage or monogamy.

[whitney]

i for one have very much enjoyed this tangent, i think the sort of stuff really makes this forum worth reading, amongst other things. i'm not sure whether discussion on these subjects can ever be found anywhere else.

(10 )

[christianef]

agree with lowery. not sure a 3.5k outfit is the best way to call weddings out on their painful delusions of bourgeois grandeur though obv wasnt t bone's intention. Remember the Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire when Hillary's fiance trevor dies bungee jumping at the wedding lol i love that show.

[Fade to Black]

you know you bout to do it big when they bump your shit in belgium

[zamb]

can't let that slide, Z. I know we disagree on certain things, but please do a fact check on this. There were many, many, many generations of humans that existed without marriage or monogamy.

well this is debatable, an agreeing or disagreeing all depends on the source you determine to be authoritative in these matters...........

[Fuuma]

well this is debatable, an agreeing or disagreeing all depends on the source you determine to be authoritative in these matters...........

Not really because polygamy is present in certain societies to this day. I mean are you gonna tell me South Africa's president is a figment of our collective imagination? There is no debate, a large number of societies and individuals have existed either with a mix of polygamy and monogamy or only with polygamy....

If you're talking about marriage as an institution that includes polygamous and monogamous relationships well documented societies without it also abound. In other words I don't see what kind of debate we can have...

[zamb]

I think you misunderstood my position


I am not saying societies don't of hasn't existed without marriage, or that polygamy doesn't exist or whatever.
my original argument is that marriage is as old as human civilization, and as long as human beings exist there will always be the need to marry.

I am not saying we cannot lived without or never lived without the institution or different forms of it. I am saying the institution is as old as human civilization itself and will continue to exist because human being will always have the desire to do so,
Amidst the failures of the institution in modern society there is no greater pledge that one can make to a person they love and want to be with than the pledge of marriage...........

Not really because polygamy is present in certain societies to this day. I mean are you gonna tell me South Africa's president is a figment of our collective imagination? There is no debate, a large number of societies and individuals have existed either with a mix of polygamy and monogamy or only with polygamy....

If you're talking about marriage as an institution that includes polygamous and monogamous relationships well documented societies without it also abound. In other words I don't see what kind of debate we can have...

[Fuuma]

I think you misunderstood my position


I am not saying societies don't of hasn't existed without marriage, or that polygamy doesn't exist or whatever.
my original argument is that marriage is as old as human civilization, and as long as human beings exist there will always be the need to marry.

I am not saying we cannot lived without or never lived without the institution or different forms of it. I am saying the institution is as old as human civilization itself and will continue to exist because human being will always have the desire to do so,
Amidst the failures of the institution in modern society there is no greater pledge that one can make to a person they love and want to be with than the pledge of marriage...........

Your are committing a logical fallacy of epic proportions; if societies where marriage do not exist occur then it is possible to conceive of a future where only these type of societies would exist UNLESS you think that the determination to have or not have marriage is brought about by an oppositional comparison to other societies (i.e. "if this society doesn't have marriage then ours will to counterbalance them").

Moreover you would have to define what constitutes "human civilization" to say that marriage is concomitant with its existence; depending on the criteria selected it would be quite possible to retort your claim is demonstrably false. As it stands it is merely quite certainly false, which is at the same time infinitely and barely much better.

Terms like always are quite problematic, especially when viewed through the prism of anthropology and even more so when they're applied to the (heavily discounted) future.