35 ms·

> I guess I'm not seeing what impact marriage has on society as a whole Are you blind? You haven't noticed that it's ghetto shit-hole everywhere in modern wor

> I guess I'm not seeing what impact marriage has on society as a whole Are you blind? You haven't noticed that it's ghetto shit-hole everywhere in modern world that stable two parent families aren't the norm? Marriage in its traditional form is an institution arrived at through a Darwinian process of cultural selection. It has been proven by time to be the best way to further a society. Messing with it is extremely dangerous. Cultural conservatism is much like environmentalism. You just don't want to go blindly messing around with complex natural systems. The consequences are usually bad.

Retric 18y ago
For most of human history people married who their parents told them to. Calling what we do now traditional marriage is silly because it's been changing fairly rapidly over time. Look at marriage in nortic countries and you will see a large separation between having kids and getting married yet they are doing better than most of Europe and the US on most measurements of heath, happiness and economic growth. Looking back it's hard to extrapolate the value of "traditional family values" because we have a lower crime rate, better educated population, and a better economy now than we did back with they where more common.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  > because it's been changing fairly rapidly over time No, it's been changing fairly rapidly for less than 100 years, and usually with serious unforeseen consequences. > Look at marriage in nortic countries I'm tired of hearing about nordic countries. First, they aren't nearly as great as the pom-pom crowd thinks. If you do an apples to apples comparison of middle class whites in northern US states to nordic countries, they're really not so fantastic. And there is plenty of hand-wringing about social degradation in Sweden. They're, what, one generation in to their shift away from more conservative arrangements? Give it time and you'll see problems.
  - Retric 18y ago
    Edit: Deleted double post.
  - Retric 18y ago
    No, it's been changing fairly rapidly for less than 100 years, and usually with serious unforeseen consequences. Woman's rights have been on the rise for much longer than 100 years. (I hear they can vote, own property, and even work in the theater.) I used to be a crime to have sex outside of marriage but that's been on the decline for a long time. There used to be limits on who could marrie based on class and or race lines. (Duke's don't get hitched with just anyone you know.) Dowery's used to be common but now it's mostly just the wives family paying for more of the wedding. (This trend has been going on for a while.) Divorce was introduced by one of the Henry's (he killed most of his other wives but their was one he liked.) I could go on but most of these trends are a lot older than 100 years. One of the few things that does not really seem to change is infidelity. Genetic tests have shown that married women tend to have about ~20% of their kids from someone other than their husband. This does not seem to have changed much over time. PS: Nordic marriage traditions go all the way back to the vikings, but they don't look much like "Christian" family values.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    You forgot to end with ", I assert without evidence".
geebee 18y ago
I upmodded you, though I completely disagree with what you just said. For starters, monogamy in highly socially stratified societies is a very rare social phenomenon. You might want to check out "The Moral Animal" for some discussion of this. The line I remember: "socially stratified monogamous cultures are the true freaks of nature" (paraphrasing here, but I'm close). However, they do tend to be the norm among highly prosperous and free societies, which takes us to your second point... Haven't you noticed the strong correlation between wealth and freedom and gay rights? Look who is for gay marriage and who is against it. Genentech, Google, and Apple were were very high profile donors against Prop 8. This isn't just a San Francisco leftist coalition - we're talking the biggest, heaviest hitters in the most innovative fields in America. I agree with you that Scandanavian countries are lauded a bit too much by the left... but let's compare these economies (where gay rights are supported strongly) with the cultural and economic environment in regions where they are not... oh, say, Afghanistan? Even in the US, the regions that support gay marriage tend to be attracting the best companies with their top notch workforce. They companies come to them, not the other way around. The regions that don't are still wondering what low skilled factory they're going to be able to attract to replace the textile mill that closed in the seventies. Seems to me like this one is pretty obvious.
- while 18y ago
  Some people compare gay rights with slavery (which I think is a bit of a stretch) and argue that though the majority of the population thought slavery was ok back then, it didn't make it right. That's certainly true, but one must also realize that the "wealthy and free" were big supporters of slavery. The point is, being wealthy and free does not give one a more "correct" opinion than one who is not. And I don't see a strong correlation between "wealth and freedom and gay rights". I see a strong correlation between gay rights and political image.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  > strong correlation between wealth and freedom and gay rights The upper classes carry themselves on with bourgeois family traditions whatever the legal environment. They don't personally see the disastrous consequences of family breakdown because their families remain whole, so they don't give a second thought to liberalizing laws. In poorer areas, the breakdown of family values is a real pressing issue. People see the social catastrophe around them and recognize the further threats. Wealthier areas are more socially liberal because it's personally irrelevant to them. The areas are wealthy usually because of strongly bourgeois family traditions. Poorer areas are usually more socially fragile.
azanar 18y ago
Two things: 1. You seem to have settled on a root cause ghetto shit-holes being the lack of social and cultural bonding rituals between one member of each gender. Generally, I look at cultures like that and see things like oppressive governments, lack of stable, productive economies, and the absence of anything resembling education causing strife? I haven't seen anything to suggest that oppression comes from the lack of observing ritualistic pair-bonds. Perhaps you have data to prove me wrong? 2. Marriage is not a natural system. Nor is culture, except for the tendency for humans to form them. That they manifest at all seems to be a product of human nature; how they manifest seems much more based on environment and random variation. Otherwise, our culture would be indistinguishable from that of everyone elses. Or are you suggesting that we are still in the process of cultural selection, and ours will inevitably prevail?

Retric 18y ago

For most of human history people married who their parents told them to. Calling what we do now traditional marriage is silly because it's been changing fairly rapidly over time. Look at marriage in nortic countries and you will see a large separation between having kids and getting married yet they are doing better than most of Europe and the US on most measurements of heath, happiness and economic growth. Looking back it's hard to extrapolate the value of "traditional family values" because we have a lower crime rate, better educated population, and a better economy now than we did back with they where more common.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
> because it's been changing fairly rapidly over time No, it's been changing fairly rapidly for less than 100 years, and usually with serious unforeseen consequences. > Look at marriage in nortic countries I'm tired of hearing about nordic countries. First, they aren't nearly as great as the pom-pom crowd thinks. If you do an apples to apples comparison of middle class whites in northern US states to nordic countries, they're really not so fantastic. And there is plenty of hand-wringing about social degradation in Sweden. They're, what, one generation in to their shift away from more conservative arrangements? Give it time and you'll see problems.
- Retric 18y ago
  Edit: Deleted double post.
- Retric 18y ago
  No, it's been changing fairly rapidly for less than 100 years, and usually with serious unforeseen consequences. Woman's rights have been on the rise for much longer than 100 years. (I hear they can vote, own property, and even work in the theater.) I used to be a crime to have sex outside of marriage but that's been on the decline for a long time. There used to be limits on who could marrie based on class and or race lines. (Duke's don't get hitched with just anyone you know.) Dowery's used to be common but now it's mostly just the wives family paying for more of the wedding. (This trend has been going on for a while.) Divorce was introduced by one of the Henry's (he killed most of his other wives but their was one he liked.) I could go on but most of these trends are a lot older than 100 years. One of the few things that does not really seem to change is infidelity. Genetic tests have shown that married women tend to have about ~20% of their kids from someone other than their husband. This does not seem to have changed much over time. PS: Nordic marriage traditions go all the way back to the vikings, but they don't look much like "Christian" family values.
- tptacek 18y ago
  You forgot to end with ", I assert without evidence".

geebee 18y ago

I upmodded you, though I completely disagree with what you just said. For starters, monogamy in highly socially stratified societies is a very rare social phenomenon. You might want to check out "The Moral Animal" for some discussion of this. The line I remember: "socially stratified monogamous cultures are the true freaks of nature" (paraphrasing here, but I'm close). However, they do tend to be the norm among highly prosperous and free societies, which takes us to your second point... Haven't you noticed the strong correlation between wealth and freedom and gay rights? Look who is for gay marriage and who is against it. Genentech, Google, and Apple were were very high profile donors against Prop 8. This isn't just a San Francisco leftist coalition - we're talking the biggest, heaviest hitters in the most innovative fields in America. I agree with you that Scandanavian countries are lauded a bit too much by the left... but let's compare these economies (where gay rights are supported strongly) with the cultural and economic environment in regions where they are not... oh, say, Afghanistan? Even in the US, the regions that support gay marriage tend to be attracting the best companies with their top notch workforce. They companies come to them, not the other way around. The regions that don't are still wondering what low skilled factory they're going to be able to attract to replace the textile mill that closed in the seventies. Seems to me like this one is pretty obvious.

while 18y ago
Some people compare gay rights with slavery (which I think is a bit of a stretch) and argue that though the majority of the population thought slavery was ok back then, it didn't make it right. That's certainly true, but one must also realize that the "wealthy and free" were big supporters of slavery. The point is, being wealthy and free does not give one a more "correct" opinion than one who is not. And I don't see a strong correlation between "wealth and freedom and gay rights". I see a strong correlation between gay rights and political image.
kingkongrevenge 18y ago
> strong correlation between wealth and freedom and gay rights The upper classes carry themselves on with bourgeois family traditions whatever the legal environment. They don't personally see the disastrous consequences of family breakdown because their families remain whole, so they don't give a second thought to liberalizing laws. In poorer areas, the breakdown of family values is a real pressing issue. People see the social catastrophe around them and recognize the further threats. Wealthier areas are more socially liberal because it's personally irrelevant to them. The areas are wealthy usually because of strongly bourgeois family traditions. Poorer areas are usually more socially fragile.

azanar 18y ago

Two things: 1. You seem to have settled on a root cause ghetto shit-holes being the lack of social and cultural bonding rituals between one member of each gender. Generally, I look at cultures like that and see things like oppressive governments, lack of stable, productive economies, and the absence of anything resembling education causing strife? I haven't seen anything to suggest that oppression comes from the lack of observing ritualistic pair-bonds. Perhaps you have data to prove me wrong? 2. Marriage is not a natural system. Nor is culture, except for the tendency for humans to form them. That they manifest at all seems to be a product of human nature; how they manifest seems much more based on environment and random variation. Otherwise, our culture would be indistinguishable from that of everyone elses. Or are you suggesting that we are still in the process of cultural selection, and ours will inevitably prevail?