I think it's more complex than any simple view can describe. But marriage as an institution along the religious lines exists somewhat as a way to protect women's risk from entering into a relationship, consider it a kind of social insurance framework.

Women are simply at higher risk in terms of sexual relationships then men because they can get pregnant. The man can if he wants to just leave and go do whatever saddling the woman with a child. This is just the way life works. Not fair but it is how it is. Marriage then serves as a way to kind of ensure to the woman the man will stay around to take care of his kids. And well, it benefits the man as well because it means the woman is more likely to put out for a relationship in the first place, as well as the protections he gets in the situations where the woman doesn't really follow through on her end of the relationship which tends to happen a lot as well.

Really you don't need the government to come in and do it. Two otherwise competent people can do it themselves. But the government getting involved does tend to mitigates some of the risks involved for both parties. Of course I would argue that with our current system and with the way divorce laws work the system doesn't really do what it used to socially.

I don't really have a problem with gay people piggybacking onto the marriage system if they want. Doesn't make a difference in the long run I think if two men want to get married. But their relationship isn't going to ever have the same dynamics as a fertile couple would simply because the possibility of kids isn't the same whatsoever. There's no such thing as an "unplanned gay pregnancy".

I think that the feminists kinda got blinded by their own desire to get equality with men that they overlooked how some of the inequalities in the system were reflections of the biological inequalities surrounding childbirth and rearing. I don't see a problem with say, the woman deciding to work while the man stays home to watch the kid, but that's just not what is going to naturally happen in the majority of cases cause of how pregnancy and breastfeeding make it easier for the woman to stay home while the man works.

Now we've got a situation where loads of women have entered the workforce and possibly lowered the value of labor to the point where it's no longer possible for most couples to subsist off of a single income. Not sure that has helped the lot of women in the long run.

I think that's kinda the problem with the feminists, they went past "it's wrong that women are barred from public life" to "women who want traditional domestic rolls are holding us back!" Which is just baffling to me. The woman at home raising and caring for the kids is still working hard. That's an important job, that's a very important job. Why look down on it? Why criticize women who choose to do it? Maybe it's not what all women want, and that's fine, but what's wrong with the idea that it's what most women want? And what's wrong with them if they choose to live that way?

I think feminists in general are just chronically unhappy people. They always look at everything in the most negative ways. I'd say it's a female trait but it's really not. It's that of the pessimist. I'm a pessimist but still some take it to the absolute extremes.

I've seen very similar personality profiles between the hardline rad-fems and the evangelist Karen's. I think it's all one and the same. Cluster-B personality disorders? Does the B stand for bitch?

I'm far less misogynistic when it comes to women who are actually not cunts. Plenty of them. I'll even agree with them when they complain about the scumbag men out there as there are plenty. But it's always funny to me how the worst people always seem to find each other. Never can they realize they are both contributing to the problems they have. Like watching someone drive past a gas station on a low tank complain to the tow truck driver about how slow they are.