>>10776>Yeah-yeah, Christianity is le epik rebel religion or whatever. Marriage goes back to Mesopotamia. It's not a Christian invention, and most marriages today are secular.
>Fuck the fact that religion and marriage reinforced feudal class relations, who cares? The idealist self-righteous "rebelliousness" against "sin" is more important.Feudalism is gone, so what feudal class relations is it enforcing now you nonce. And just because something can be used in class relations doesn't make it inherently classist. What class relations are being enforced when a poor man and woman wed? Goddamn you're stupid.
>Screw the fact that Marx himself posited that humanity was born into primitive communism and THEN formed class society.The anthropology that Marx based that on is wildly out dated. Regardless the need for marriage based on a more basic material analysis. Every society needs to perpetuate itself, that means it needs to have babies. But because of the way human reproduction works a society needs every woman to have a baby, only a small percentage of men. Because a woman can only have one baby but a man can have many babies simultaneously.
The majority of men just aren't needed to reproduce, but they none the less want to sire their own children. So when they fail libs like you make it a moral failing instead of the natural outcome of a hierarchical society.
Ancient people weren't simps and understood that if men didn't get their own children, they wouldn't follow any of society's rules.
Genetics are scientifically proving that men are disposable and will die without children 80% of the time.
We have always lived in a Chadtocracy but it could be swept under the rug until the advent of DNA paternity testing.
You're afraid of the truth being more widely known because you know damn well men will collectively stop paying for the welfare state and the support of Chad's children.