>>508753119 (OP)
They can go to Canada

>>508753119 (OP)
Heil Satan

A meme for all the atheists on this board.

>>508753119 (OP)
Why do atheists even marry?

Love, commitment, family, etc. can be obtained without marriage. Marriage is literally just a legal trap if you are an atheist and you don't see anything sacred in it.

Are atheists basically larping? Just as the ones claiming to be pagans.

>>508754145
>Why do atheists even marry?
Tax benefits lol

>>508754145
>if you are an atheist and you don't see anything sacred in it.
Nah, I do. Despite the tax benefits, It's commitment when we wrote our own vows

>>508753119 (OP)
I'm an atheist.

I view modern marriage as a scam where women can destroy men and take their wealth.

>>508755375
>>508755449

Do the tax benefits outweigh the high statistical likelihood of the marriage ending in divorce and suffering all the consequences that divorce brings?

>>508753119 (OP)
As an atheist, I think that all degenerates should be put to the forced labor camps.
Traditional marriage is based, the jewish form we see today is not.

>>508755375
That makes no sense. Any tax benefit is offset by the risk of losing half your stuff.

>>508755449
Ok, write your own vows. Why make it a legal issue? Just as faith, any moral obligation is metaphysical.

>>508756204
If you don't want to get divorced, be a less shitty guy and start dating less shitty women. I'm starting to wonder if people's hatred of women around here is actually reflective of a fear of one's own true nature. You think it will happen tonyou because you've convinced yourself that you're not good enough to be a long-term partner.

>>508753119 (OP)
kek

>>508756866

Regardless of what you think the cause is, what we know are some of the following facts:

In Canada, over 40% of marriages end in divorce. In the USA, over 50% of marriages end in divorce. These numbers are actually artificially low as now many people avoid marriage all together.

Between 60-90% of divorces are initiated by women. Most women, before divorcing, typically have another man on the side.

Even if divorce was a 1% chance, that 1% has a high potential to ruin your life due to marital division of assets, alimony, court battles, etc.

Do you take the risk so you can say that you have signed a marriage contract which binds you to a high degree of legal obligations while the women can, at any time, pull the trigger against you? What is the point of that?

>>508756484
you would put yourself in a camp? weird, but kinda based.

>>508757629
I fully agree that the majority of atheists are absolute faggots. While I don't believe in any higher power, I do share a lot of the Christian morals. I just don't need a god to know what's correct. Most people do though.

>>508756484
I don't think any marriage is based:

Modern marriage: Women can destroy your life and take your wealth.

Traditional marriage: Woman can destroy your life, sanity, and can still maybe even divorce you with bullshit "just cause"

I think the way out of the sex war issues regarding marriage is not to go back, but to go forward. End all marriage, period. End all child support. The state should pay people significant amounts of money to have and raise children. The state should pay women to be stay at home mothers as an actual job with severance pay if they no longer stay at home after a certain amount of time so they can get a job elsewhere.

Yes, this may mean higher taxes, but this will also likely make for a better life for children and men.

>>508754036
Someone who genuinely believes in Evolution believes in Evolving, which entails refraining from counter-evolutionary practices (i.e. degeneracy). To condone dysgenic madness like sodomy or transgenderism is to embrace Devolution, the diametrical opposite of evolution, and thereby to actively Oppose evolution. To believe in evolution is to recognize its inherent goodness, not just its mere occurrence, and to subscribe to it not merely as an origin story for the species of today, but in fact as a categorical imperative for all life in existence.

>>508753119 (OP)
atheists have made marriage illegal for everyone

>>508758310
I think that there should be some form of a marriage to promote a stable, traditional family. Without that, you are opening a way for polygamy, which should be unacceptable. If women returned to their traditional roles, most of the problems they bring would be mitigated. But I agree on your point that the state should support women to stay at home.

>>508759004
>marriage to promote a stable, traditional family
punch a pastor for Jesus

>>508759004
Polygamy is about as traditional as it gets. Monogamy is a relatively recent anomaly.

Societies form polygamy as a response to poverty and violence. Women seek out wealthy and powerful men for protection and this forms polygamy.

If your society is wealthy; which it is, and it's low violence; which it also is, and women are paid to be stay at home mothers and child support is paid by the state as proposed by my idea above, then it's likely that the only reason women would choose polygamy is if they believe the man they are with provides better genes. Ultimately we should desire that women seek out better genes.

>>508754145
Marriage is a legal incorporation with the state.

You get married in the county Clerks office, you're legally married

You get married in a church ceremony without the license, you are not legally married.

>>508759381
White it may be an efficient and natural thing to do, I cannot support polygamy on moral principles. I believe that your spouse should be absolutely loyal to you, regardless of whether a better option arises.

>>508759752
There's no reason not to support polygamy based on morality.

It's non-violent, it ensures that women and children are cared for, and it propagates positive genes. Every human alive today can trace their ancestry to a very long line of polygamous activities.

All our ancestors practiced polygamy in some form. And practically all religions that so called "traditionalists" pull their morality from have often supported polygamy as well because those same ancestors created those religions to begin with.

>>508759004
With "growth" there's an exponential expansion in the number of people at the sweet end of the trough who need to be fed. This means women will stay in the workplace, nations will be forced to embrace multiculturalism, new "make profits out of thin air" schemes like homosexuality and transgenderism will flourish along with new and exciting styles of government to administer it all. Government needs new departments and bureaus on the reg. On the fucking reg! Can never sit still. It will never, ever stop until the comets come. Don't forget. You're here forever. Until the comets come. And they might be tomorrow. Might be 500 years from now.

>>508759933
So you're saying White men like me who have great success should be able to get 30 immigrant wives and impregnate all of them? Or are you arguing that chads should all take all the women because that means you will finally get an attractive man to settle for you.

>>508759933
There may not be an objective reason for monogamy, but a good society is not formed on objective reasons alone. Diversion from set morals is one of the reasons why our society is in such a bad state.

>>508756747
>Any tax benefit is offset by the risk of losing half your stuff.
Prenuptial agreements

>>508756747
>Why make it a legal issue?
Because there's more than taxes. Legal and medical stuff. Look it up dude

>>508756204
>statistical likelihood of the marriage ending in divorce and suffering all the consequences that divorce brings?
None of that applies to me

>>508760451
I'm saying that men should be allowed to have more than one woman. Provided that it's done without coercion, there really isn't much reason to be against this.

We already live in a polygamous society, it never truly stopped. Now days polygamy takes the form of serial monogamy, mistresses, prostitutes, etc.

>>508754145
They say they escape from religious dogmas, still on genocentric, kek.

>>508760588
I think we're in a "bad state" right now because we are in a transitional period.

Our species evolved in a condition where biological roles were still intact, men did hard labour to gather resources. Women tended to the home and children and got pregnant without any self-control.

But now we have things like automation technology making it possible for softer jobs to open up for women to gather resources and thus makes it harder for men to bargain with women to form a sexual relationship. Automation also devalues children, now that we no longer need unpaid labour from children and can now use machines. And women were given powerful contraceptive technologies which freed them even more from out of control pregnancies allowing them to pursue careers, education, and childlessness. And the state and private sectors have expanded various social safety net services to a point where women and children are guaranteed a degree of safety without the support of men.

As technology advances, the value in relationships and children decrease.

But in all this, a lot of our social norms and values have lagged behind. So now we have a situation where women are well off, but the law still viewed women as being the financial obligation of men.

>>508760655
Literally every married man thinks they have the special marriage that can never end in divorce.

>>508761094
and these pastors just take their money and tell them that as long as they dont abuse their wives they wont be harmed

>>508761094
10 years and going

I lost my gf of 8 years because I told her marriage was a christian practice and Im a godless heathen when she broke down asking why I hadnt proposed
I slightly regret not just doing it since its largely a government structure these days