3 ms·

The argument that marriage--actual, traditional, heterosexual bindings that produce fresh generations--is useless stands contradicted by the dwindling of a futu

The argument that marriage--actual, traditional, heterosexual bindings that produce fresh generations--is useless stands contradicted by the dwindling of a future generations. Sure, you can point to other factors, e.g. China's One Child policy; war: but the idea that Really Smart People are going to just wave some policy at the problem is laughable. What works is boys growing into men, girls into women, and families precipitating from actual marriages between them. Pro tip: parenthood is JOY! The idea that technology has obviated Biology whistles past its own graveyard, voting down anyone daring to point out anyone daring to point out something as obvious as the sunrise. (And, hey, if Destiny has had other plans than supporting your direct parenthood, the adoption is an eminently honorable alternative.)

const_cast 1y ago
The problem is you’re proposing a social solution and those largely just don’t work. We achieved the conservative wet dream of the nuclear family in the past via oppressive policy. We forced women into subservient positions where they can’t gain financial freedom, and we persecuted sexual minorities like homosexuals. Returning to that is bad. We all decided that that sucks. Not just women, men too. Gender roles suck ass. I don’t want to be a provider, and women largely don’t want to be domestic slaves. We gave people more freedom, and turns out that means a lot of people don’t want the white picket fence life. I mean, what’s the actionable policy here? Restrict women from having bank accounts? Criminalize homosexuality? Kill transgender people? Would that… fix anything? I don’t think so. Even just the foundation is rocky. Were things better in the past? I don’t think so, no. Maybe if you were a successful white man, but even then, you’re probably better off in the modern, progressive world. For everyone else though, you know, the majority, it was a trap. I don’t want to work in the mines and come home to a depressed wife who made a sad looking depression casserole. That’s not the life I want and, evidently, not the life a lot of people want. So, here we are.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  Mom; dad; kids: please explain the failing component? This is not a top-down policy prescription. It is plain, simple, bottom-up wisdom. Nothing I'm saying here has to do with external law. Rather, internal common sense. To your point, and as Strother Martin succinctly put it in Cool Hand Luke: "There's some men you just can't reach." The actionable policy is to pursue the basic truth of "form follows function".
  - const_cast 1y ago
    What you’re advocating for, then, is total freedom for one to choose one’s life path. Which is what we have right now. So, great, we’re all on the same page.
    - smitty1e 1y ago
      Absolutely. I would add that we put on our Big People Pants and point out that not all paths are fruitful, and encourage people to consider those that are. The karma expense is significant, but worthwhile.
chneu 1y ago
>The argument that marriage--actual, traditional, heterosexual bindings that produce fresh generations--is useless stands contradicted by the dwindling of a future generations. This only makes sense if you start from the perspective that the lack of a nuclear family is the cause of problems. That's a very clear bias that isn't really reflected by reality. This is outdated conservative logic.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  I would say that lack of respect for marriage--and wisdom in general--drives a huge chunk of societal woes. In other words lack of of the nuclear family is 'a' problem. Whether this lack is 'the' problem is pushing my argument a bit farther than I would.

const_cast 1y ago

The problem is you’re proposing a social solution and those largely just don’t work. We achieved the conservative wet dream of the nuclear family in the past via oppressive policy. We forced women into subservient positions where they can’t gain financial freedom, and we persecuted sexual minorities like homosexuals. Returning to that is bad. We all decided that that sucks. Not just women, men too. Gender roles suck ass. I don’t want to be a provider, and women largely don’t want to be domestic slaves. We gave people more freedom, and turns out that means a lot of people don’t want the white picket fence life. I mean, what’s the actionable policy here? Restrict women from having bank accounts? Criminalize homosexuality? Kill transgender people? Would that… fix anything? I don’t think so. Even just the foundation is rocky. Were things better in the past? I don’t think so, no. Maybe if you were a successful white man, but even then, you’re probably better off in the modern, progressive world. For everyone else though, you know, the majority, it was a trap. I don’t want to work in the mines and come home to a depressed wife who made a sad looking depression casserole. That’s not the life I want and, evidently, not the life a lot of people want. So, here we are.

smitty1e 1y ago
Mom; dad; kids: please explain the failing component? This is not a top-down policy prescription. It is plain, simple, bottom-up wisdom. Nothing I'm saying here has to do with external law. Rather, internal common sense. To your point, and as Strother Martin succinctly put it in Cool Hand Luke: "There's some men you just can't reach." The actionable policy is to pursue the basic truth of "form follows function".
- const_cast 1y ago
  What you’re advocating for, then, is total freedom for one to choose one’s life path. Which is what we have right now. So, great, we’re all on the same page.
  - smitty1e 1y ago
    Absolutely. I would add that we put on our Big People Pants and point out that not all paths are fruitful, and encourage people to consider those that are. The karma expense is significant, but worthwhile.

chneu 1y ago

>The argument that marriage--actual, traditional, heterosexual bindings that produce fresh generations--is useless stands contradicted by the dwindling of a future generations. This only makes sense if you start from the perspective that the lack of a nuclear family is the cause of problems. That's a very clear bias that isn't really reflected by reality. This is outdated conservative logic.

smitty1e 1y ago
I would say that lack of respect for marriage--and wisdom in general--drives a huge chunk of societal woes. In other words lack of of the nuclear family is 'a' problem. Whether this lack is 'the' problem is pushing my argument a bit farther than I would.