GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

[MSimon]

Look at alcohol prohibition. Such prohibitions were not new. They never worked. And the results were obvious. And predicted.

But liberals and social conservatives got together and passed a law. It didn't work - badly.

By the end liberals had given it up and social conservatives were defending the good it was doing.

I needn't remind you of modern parallels.

=====

But OK. If we can't change why not polygamy? And females and children as property? After all it is traditional.

Why not kill for adultery? It is after all one of the Ten Commandments. Isn't it pretty serious to change one of them?

What is the rule for allowing change? Or demanding it?

[palladin9479]

Polygamy is a left over of an earlier state of nature. Evolutionarily it makes more sense for a woman to have offspring from a very capable Alpha Male even if she has to share him. Chickens and Apes still operate with this system. We are simply devolving back to a more primitive state.

We never left the primitive state. Women in their fertile time are severely attracted to alphas. The rest of the time they prefer a beta.

The only way to keep women even slightly in line and make marriage viable is to kill them if they have sex outside of marriage. Jesus ruined it for everybody.

This is very very true. Instinctively women want children from as many fathers as possible, males want to father children with as many females as possible. This is counter balanced by the process of mate selection, a female would rather have multiple children with a strong assertive male then children with different weaker submissive males. This creates the situation in which females will attempt to procreate with many "alphas" at once and failing that will settle for a single alpha, failing that she'll seek out the stronger of the betas. The only solution for the male to ensure the female only fathers his children is to kill off other alpha's, beat down / scare off betas, and failing that to publicly kill the female to scare the other females into submission.

This is all speaking purely from a base animal point of view. The fabrication of society as resulted in those base instincts being expressed differently. Just visit a rave / party scene if you want to see it all in play. Or visit a college campus and watch how the young sexually active homo sapiens interact. "Marriage" was just our ancestors attempt to regulate and control the whole mess within the context of a naturally tribal species.

[GIThruster]

Wow. What a difference six days away has made. Some of the developments here are as expected. The progressives are as always the most ill-tempered and abusive while claiming others have been the culprits. As always, Paladin is writing about stuff he knows nothing about and pretending to be an authority. I just think it's funny how someone so obviously clueless seems to think he always has all the answers, especially when in each post he proves he's never had a single class in western Civ or the ancient Meditteranean world. Kudos to rj40 for trying to steer this into a constructive conversation. I'll try to answer a couple of his/her questions as they were genuinely thoughtful. But big kudos to Dio for plucking out Chesterton. No one is more obviously correct when it comes to examining our traditions. Woot to G.K.!

To rj's questions:

I guess I am interested in how marriage as an institution has changed over time, and when change occurred, what happened to the society that hosted the institution.

Are there any instances where the change to the institution was roughly equal in scale as gay marriage would be today (not gay marriage back then, but something that would be arguably similar in scale)? What happened in those instances? For example, it seems to be that the switch from polygamy to monogamy would be as profound as accepting gay marriage would be today. If not more so.

What about societies that did not allow the marriage of people who had different religions or cultures? Or between different social strata (e.g., different castes in India)?

Were there any societies that at on time forbad people to marry who could not have children (maybe due to illness or injury - but at any rate society knew that a couple would never have children)?

Yes, there are obviously examples of how marriage has changed over time in each of the categories you mention. I think it's safe to say the outcomes have been mixed. For instance, the coming of age of interracial marriage here in the States has certainly been accompanied by the decline of marriage over the last 4 decades, but I doubt there is a causal link. Certainly, we have extreme consequences to this. Lack of family structure is producing a whole new generation that is largely uneducatable because there is inadequate family structure and kids are refusing to do homework, getting involved in crime and drug use in record numbers and otherwise failing in life. This same thing occurred in the Soviet Union when they deliberately disabled the traditional family in favor of a more atheistic/communist notion of whole communities raising children. Complete social failure. We're headed that way.

There are also the changes in India to consider. I'm not an expert on that but just noting that indeed, the older tradition of caste separation is ending. It would be interesting to get an insider's view of how this has affected the world's largest democracy. Would democracy even be possible were that caste system never to have come tumbling down? What were the influences that caused the caste system to dismantle? I would guess British Imperialism and Christian missionaries but I am only guessing.

What about societies that did not allow marriage between different religions? There are many examples one could take but the most obvious is ancient Judah. When they violated their scriptures and married the pagans surrounding them, this did indeed lead the people away from their devotion, and in particular one can read things like Jeremiah, who records the grotesque adoptions of ancient Palestinian practices inside Judah, including all the abominations one can imagine, from ritualistic magic to child sacrifice. According to that prophet it was because Judah had so adopted the wicked practices of those around them that they were carried off to Babylon. Whether you buy that or not, it's fair to observe that when people marry outside their religion, this moves their center of gravity. Maybe they never cared much about religion and maybe they did, but it's obvious there are all manner of new stressers on anyone who marries outside their religion. It's also obvious this makes various holidays difficult, fractures traditions, etc.

I am not aware of any societies who ever forbade anyone to marry because they could not have children, but almost all societies have historically promoted celibacy before marriage so they would not have known a couple could not have children. It is the advent of fairly reliable birth control and easily obtained safe abortion that is changing the traditions of celibacy to promiscuity. It's important to note these as they really do end up changing everything. Even in eastern cultures where women have traditionally been much more promiscuous, especially in South East Asia, women have never been so promiscuous as they are now. Birth control and abortion are changing the face of the world and are probably the primary force behind the decline in marriage and traditional families. Unfortunately for the women who have been sexually liberated by these changes, it is placing them in large portion into self-induced poverty, while the men are fleeing all responsibility. In those places where you see the least marriage, like the inner city; you find the greatest poverty, the worst education, the decline of Western Civilization at its most obvious. I'm not suggesting there is a way back but if there is, it escapes me. We are rapidly approaching a society where personal responsibility has been replaced by personal liberty and that leads obviously to the end of civilization as we know it.

And that really is the issue with gay marriage as well--it is pushing toward the end of civilization. For children to be healthy, productive and well adjusted, they need intimate contact with a parent of each role type over a long period of time. Tests I've seen in the past seem to verify that men tend to marry people who are like their mother and women tend to marry people are are like their father. Pretending its good for society for children to not have both in the home is just stupid, and self-serving nonsense. And though I really didn't want to see this thread manipulated into a gay issues thread, I have to admit that when looking at what is best for children, starting with disqualifying No-Fault divorce, next would certainly be disqualifying gay couples adopting for exactly the same reasons--this does NOT put the welfare of the child at the top of the needs list. It's pandering to selfish adults.

[Diogenes]

Yes, there are obviously examples of how marriage has changed over time in each of the categories you mention. I think it's safe to say the outcomes have been mixed. For instance, the coming of age of interracial marriage here in the States has certainly been accompanied by the decline of marriage over the last 4 decades, but I doubt there is a causal link. Certainly, we have extreme consequences to this. Lack of family structure is producing a whole new generation that is largely uneducatable because there is inadequate family structure and kids are refusing to do homework, getting involved in crime and drug use in record numbers and otherwise failing in life. This same thing occurred in the Soviet Union when they deliberately disabled the traditional family in favor of a more atheistic/communist notion of whole communities raising children. Complete social failure. We're headed that way.



I am not aware of any societies who ever forbade anyone to marry because they could not have children, but almost all societies have historically promoted celibacy before marriage so they would not have known a couple could not have children. It is the advent of fairly reliable birth control and easily obtained safe abortion that is changing the traditions of celibacy to promiscuity.

Don't forget the effect of medications to stop what was previously fatal diseases. Likewise, do not ignore the government's role in removing the possibility of starvation from a woman and child abandoned by the man. Women were more careful when the chance of them being left in misery were greater. Now, Government underwrites every foolish move of societies members.

It's important to note these as they really do end up changing everything. Even in eastern cultures where women have traditionally been much more promiscuous, especially in South East Asia, women have never been so promiscuous as they are now. Birth control and abortion are changing the face of the world and are probably the primary force behind the decline in marriage and traditional families. Unfortunately for the women who have been sexually liberated by these changes, it is placing them in large portion into self-induced poverty, while the men are fleeing all responsibility. In those places where you see the least marriage, like the inner city; you find the greatest poverty, the worst education, the decline of Western Civilization at its most obvious. I'm not suggesting there is a way back but if there is, it escapes me. We are rapidly approaching a society where personal responsibility has been replaced by personal liberty and that leads obviously to the end of civilization as we know it.

We are approaching a time when there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. I personally hope to be causing some of it. I aim to settle some scores.

[Diogenes]

This is all speaking purely from a base animal point of view. The fabrication of society as resulted in those base instincts being expressed differently. Just visit a rave / party scene if you want to see it all in play. Or visit a college campus and watch how the young sexually active homo sapiens interact. "Marriage" was just our ancestors attempt to regulate and control the whole mess within the context of a naturally tribal species.

An attempt to lead humanity out of the darkness. Apparently some of us prefer the darkness.

[GIThruster]

You are claiming that the development of children depends on one parent having something dangle between their legs, and the other parent not having it. How could that possibly have any impact on the child?

When you doubt the dictates of common sense, the onus is on you, to show how common sense is wrong. It is simple, common sense that children benefit hugely from growing up in families that have both the traditional male and female role models modeled in front of them daily. You can deprecate the traditional family or try to reduce its benefits by using sarcastic language about something hanging between a man's legs, but you're not going to convince anyone with an IQ over 50. Your position is absurd, self-serving as well as obviously and stupidly wrong. You don't deserve a longer reply than that.

And I would just note to you Carter, that I can't ever remember disagreeing with you in the past, nor recall you being as abusive as you've been in this thread. If you go back and read your posts, I think you'll be surprised at just how bad they really are. This issue has you thinking and acting like a moron. You should ask yourself why.

[hanelyp]

... I'm not suggesting there is a way back but if there is, it escapes me.

I suspect we'll find our way back after reality reasserts itself and starts killing the deviants in visible numbers. Meanwhile those of us warning about the coming plague and famine will be dismissed as heartless bigots.

[GIThruster]

I suspect we'll find our way back after reality reasserts itself and starts killing the deviants in visible numbers. Meanwhile those of us warning about the coming plague and famine will be dismissed as heartless bigots.

OTOH, the Christians have been saying this coming plague and famine has been waiting for 2,000 years. When the love of humanity "grows cold" this is supposed to presage the end of this age. I am not the sort to jump to conclusions, and would note that most classical theist Christians would agree that the temple in Israel needs to be rebuilt before their eschatology says the "end times" are here, but separating sex from love seems to me an important ingredient in the mix that would allow the hearts of humanity to grow cold.

[MSimon]

Lack of family structure is producing a whole new generation that is largely uneducatable because there is inadequate family structure and kids are refusing to do homework, getting involved in crime and drug use in record numbers and otherwise failing in life.

I really hate to do this (no I don't) but in many respects we know what is causing the lack of family structure in the Black community. Something that was not so true in the 50s. Nixon did it.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/file ... erv9n1.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_War_on_Drugs

http://tremblethedevil.com/?p=2310

http://lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead38.1.html

http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2011/1 ... drugs.html

John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, indicts the drug war for “destroying black America.” McWhorter, by the way, is black. McWhorter sees prohibition as the saboteur of black families. “Enduring prison time is seen as a badge of strength. It’s regarded (with some justification) as an unjust punishment for selling people something they want. The ex-con is a hero rather than someone who went the wrong way.” He enumerates the positive results from ending prohibition. “No more gang wars over turf, no more kids shooting each other. … Men get jobs, as they did in the old days, even in the worst ghettos, because they have to.”

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/20 ... n-stossel/

Insert my usual rant against conservatives here.

[MSimon]

I suspect we'll find our way back after reality reasserts itself and starts killing the deviants in visible numbers. Meanwhile those of us warning about the coming plague and famine will be dismissed as heartless bigots.

OTOH, the Christians have been saying this coming plague and famine has been waiting for 2,000 years. When the love of humanity "grows cold" this is supposed to presage the end of this age. I am not the sort to jump to conclusions, and would note that most classical theist Christians would agree that the temple in Israel needs to be rebuilt before their eschatology says the "end times" are here, but separating sex from love seems to me an important ingredient in the mix that would allow the hearts of humanity to grow cold.

Sex for love is a romantic notion men have. Women say: "Show me the money"

OTOH sex+love is something a man can do without (thus pr0n) it is something women crave. Their pr0n is romance movies.

None of that has anything to do with reality.

Our first problem is the unwillingness to face reality. Our second and possibly bigger problem is what to do about it.

Treating women as the legal equals of men is a very new type of experiment in human history. It will take many centuries to work out. I'm not too disappointed in the wreckage so far. It is to be expected. What is lacking on the conservative side is a trust that things will work out without a Mafia of enforcers (morals police - mutaween). What is lacking from liberals is any notion that things have gone awry.

One thing absolutely required is ending government control of so much. The Drug War, welfare, marriage, etc. Stop interfering and give the systems needed a chance to emerge. Well that is just me. And the trend of youth.

[Diogenes]

... I'm not suggesting there is a way back but if there is, it escapes me.

I suspect we'll find our way back after reality reasserts itself and starts killing the deviants in visible numbers. Meanwhile those of us warning about the coming plague and famine will be dismissed as heartless bigots.

I point out (to no purpose) that were it not for Modern Medicine and Mass communications, there would have been a massive die-off of homosexuals in the 1980s. (An event which I suspect has happened repeatedly in history whenever they achieve large numbers.) Medical science identified a pathogenic threat, and Media warned homosexuals world wide, thus preventing massive numbers of them from expiring in the usual manner as a result of their behavior.


I think this circumstance is only a temporary pushback of nature.

[Stubby]

Digot once again you clearly demonstrate how bigoted you are.

The very idea that nature ( or a god if anyone wants to go there)
regularly culs homosexuals when they are more numerous is really stupid.

The idea that AIDS is a homosexual disease or a disease for so-called immoral people is equally stupid.

[Diogenes]

Did I hear something? Or was that the wind blowing through an empty container?

[hanelyp]

Some facts:

On Plague:

- Sexual promiscuity facilitates epidemics of STDs, killing or sterilizing large numbers of those who engage in the behavior.

- Homosexual men have a demonstrated tendency towards promiscuity (as do men in general, but heterosexual men normally have women as a natural limiting factor).

- With sugar daddy Uncle Sam to provide, and birth control, the incentive for women to insist on a committed man before sex is greatly reduced.

On Famine:

- Wealth doesn't just exist. Someone has to work to produce it.

- Sugar daddy Uncle Sam is breaking the incentive to work for a living, hence a breakdown of the economy producing the bread people eat.

[MSimon]

and birth control

It is a fact of life - you will have to deal. My apologies. Before we had that we used to use abortion. I read that abortion was advertised in colonial papers. I have no idea if that is true.

These guys supposedly can provide cites (NAF?) if you pay them.

http://www.studymode.com/essays/History ... 26709.html

A commenter here makes the same claim:

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/arch ... ion-rights

Back on topic:

http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/aus ... fault.aspx

I don't think you can fix most of this by law. Except for - end drug prohibition, end government welfare, and encourage abortion.

This guy - with graphs and charts makes a good case that Nixon's war on drugs accelerated single mother families.

http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2011/1 ... drugs.html

But there are difficulties. The very same people most opposed to the single mother explosion are rabidly anti-abortion and rabidly pro drug war.

But consider - what typically happens to societies where the moral and political do not match reality? They self destruct.

OK. The Jews had to deal with this many times over the course of their history. How did they square the circle? They invented lawyering and hairsplitting and reinterpretation. The absolutes were no longer quite so absolute.

Take the death penalty. The Jews have been against it for a very long time. So how did they "get around" the commands? Well you had to have twenty eye witnesses to the crime and they had to be unanimous. They have similar dodges for all the other "eternal" laws which no longer fit circumstances.

It is really too bad we live in a Christian nation. I think it would be better if we went back to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.