Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Grenartia]

We have a lot of assumptions in the West about arranged marriage that don't necessarily pan out when we go to the Middle East, India, or China. Even the European medieval period tended to refute some of our notions about the function and viability of arranged marriages. First, marriage was decoupled from romantic love as we understand it. That's not to say that women were always happy with much older husbands or plain husbands or anything of the sort, but rather that the goal wasn't always some sort of deep passionate love. Your objective was to find someone you could live with in a reasonable degree of comfort and happiness - and often friendship or affection were aspects of such marriages, especially if the bride and groom were close in age and semi-decent to one another. And love matches weren't altogether uncommon either. We get numerous examples of great romances from the medieval period. Sibylla and Guy de Lusignan, Roger Guiscard and Judith d'Évreux, etc. There were, of course, a lot of social problems with arranged marriage, but, at least in Christian Europe prior to the Renaissance, women had to consent to a marriage at the altar, murdering one's spouse was not especially common or seen as laudatory, and people generally got on as happily as they could under the circumstances. Even today, arranged marriages have a surprisingly high rate of happiness and love - and, no, I'm not advocating that we go back to that.

By the Renaissance the French Kings had an official mistress in addition to their wife.
We know the royal marriages of the Renaissance resulted in widely accepted infidelity.
If you could afford it you would only sleep with your wife to she had a son, then get a concubine (or two or three). If you were poor prostitution was rampant in Renaissance times.

So that is not a good system, where you do not get officially divorced but stop seeing your wife for someone else anyways.

So hardly a laudable system.

Modern conservatives would find many Renaissance practices completely degenerate.

Now that being said a more collaborative system where the family helps choose the potential suitors but both parties can opt out is not necessarily a bad thing.

For some people it is easy to find a wife or husband on their own, but for others it is much harder.
It should certainly be available as an option for those who want to participate.

Opting out isn't good enough. There's still massive potential to be coerced into an undesired marriage.

I.E., "marry this person who raped you in high school and have kids with them, because their parents and us have a great business deal riding on it, or you're getting cut out of the will".

[Novus America]

Divorce rates are dropping as the boomers die off.

Also you realize that before modern times the monarchs and wealthy often openly kept mistresses?
That places with arranged marriage often have widespread concubinage? (At least for those who can afford it).
Some real moral values there.

Sure I agree divorce is too easy. There should be more focus on counseling and the like before divorce, but forcing people into an unhappy relationship so they ignore their wife once she has a son and sleep with everyone else instead?
That was pre modern marriage.

Divorce rates are dropping because marriage rates have absolutely collapsed. You can't have divorce if no marriages are occurring.

Even controlled for the reduction in marriages, divorce rates are dropping.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomb ... to-plummet

True the drop in number of marriages should be addressed but the absurdly high rates amongst boomers was generational as well. Boomers overall (not all but overall) can be fairly pointed out to be the generation that caused the problems we face today.

[Nea Byzantia]

Divorce rates are dropping because marriage rates have absolutely collapsed. You can't have divorce if no marriages are occurring.

Even controlled for the reduction in marriages, divorce rates are dropping.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomb ... to-plummet

True the drop in number of marriages should be addressed but the absurdly high rates amongst boomers was generational as well. Boomers overall (not all but overall) can be fairly pointed out to be the generation that caused the problems we face today.

What Generation are you, btw?

[Transjlwanja]

When's Trump going to abolish the TSA and make anti-smoking measures a hate crime?

Smoking is disgusting & should be banned.

[Transjlwanja]

Virtue ethics, divine command theory, & natural law theory don't necessarily conflict.

[Novus America]

By the Renaissance the French Kings had an official mistress in addition to their wife.
We know the royal marriages of the Renaissance resulted in widely accepted infidelity.
If you could afford it you would only sleep with your wife to she had a son, then get a concubine (or two or three). If you were poor prostitution was rampant in Renaissance times.

So that is not a good system, where you do not get officially divorced but stop seeing your wife for someone else anyways.

So hardly a laudable system.

Modern conservatives would find many Renaissance practices completely degenerate.

Now that being said a more collaborative system where the family helps choose the potential suitors but both parties can opt out is not necessarily a bad thing.

For some people it is easy to find a wife or husband on their own, but for others it is much harder.
It should certainly be available as an option for those who want to participate.

Opting out isn't good enough. There's still massive potential to be coerced into an undesired marriage.

I.E., "marry this person who raped you in high school and have kids with them, because their parents and us have a great business deal riding on it, or you're getting cut out of the will".

That last part absolutely still can happen under the current system.
I am sure the last part still happens.
Obviously steps should be taken to allow be people to easily and safely file reports of domestic violence and abuse.

But eliminating financial pressure from marriage is impossible.

[Nea Byzantia]

Virtue ethics, divine command theory, & natural law theory don't necessarily conflict.

Agreed, There's no dialectic tension between those.

[Novus America]

Even controlled for the reduction in marriages, divorce rates are dropping.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomb ... to-plummet

True the drop in number of marriages should be addressed but the absurdly high rates amongst boomers was generational as well. Boomers overall (not all but overall) can be fairly pointed out to be the generation that caused the problems we face today.

What Generation are you, btw?

(Shudders) Unfortunately a millennial. Yes obviously a generation with its own problems.
Though I am not your stereotypical hipster who thinks socialism is good because Denmark is socialist (when Denmark is obviously not socialist).

[Bienenhalde]

That's not backed up by studies and the Christian angle ignores that the idea marriages are based on one of "Love" is a modernist invention.

Is love a modernist invention?
Is marriage a modernist invention?
Were marriage and love completely separate concepts before modernism?

As I understand it the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding "no." Even if marriage for love was a modernist invention, that would just make it a pretty damn good modernist invention.

The issue here is distinguishing between love as a form of familial attachment, and love of the "romantic" or erotic variety. I would argue that marriage only requires the former, and not the latter.

[Nea Byzantia]

What Generation are you, btw?

(Shudders) Unfortunately a millennial. Yes obviously a generation with its own problems.
Though I am not your stereotypical hipster who thinks social is good because Denmark is socialist (when it is obviously not).

Cool. I'm Gen Z.

[Transjlwanja]

Go on then. I'm curious to how pragmatism is used to decide whether something should be permitted or not.

Step 1. Can it hurt me? Yes/no.
Step 2. Can it be logically used to justify harming me? Yes/no.
Step 3. Can it harm my support networks? Yes/no.
Step 4. Does it tangibly improve the material circumstances of the lives of the citizenry? Yes/no.

Why should I care about "the material circumstances of the lives of the citizenry" if your worldview is true?

I like hyperbolic terms. But. Because globalization is a thing, I have to care about the livelihoods of non Spanish citizens. If Germany has trouble, I’m screwed. However, some random guy in Papua New Guinea? Completely irrelevant.

So the repression of gays in Egypt and Brunei doesn't matter and doesn't need to be stopped?

As a social conservative & (somewhat of) a cultural relativist, I unironically agree w/ this statement.

[Bienenhalde]

So I was thinking that sexual relations should be solely for reproduction, not for pleasure, and that marriages should be arranged according to the best interests of the family and the state without regard to romance and sexual attraction. Who here agrees with this idea?

This is literally the state mandating sinful relationships.

You've absorbed unscriptural Catholic teachings about marriage and combined them with a brazen totalitarianism to produce something more resembling IngSoc than anything authentically Christian.

Well, I figure it is either that or permitting same-sex marriage. Which would you prefer?

[Novus America]

So I was thinking that sexual relations should be solely for reproduction, not for pleasure, and that marriages should be arranged according to the best interests of the family and the state without regard to romance and sexual attraction. Who here agrees with this idea?

This is literally the state mandating sinful relationships.

You've absorbed unscriptural Catholic teachings about marriage and combined them with a brazen totalitarianism to produce something more resembling IngSoc than anything authentically Christian.

The Catholic Church does NOT teach marriages are solely for reproduction.
Although it teaches they are an important part, it teaches marriages have multiple other aspects.

In fact a Catholic marriage requires
“(1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the canonical form, i.e., in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized church minister.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag ... lic_Church

Ergo a forced marriage can never be a legitimate Catholic marriage.

[Bienenhalde]

What do you think marriage should be based upon in order to make divorce rates lower?

I honestly don't have too many objections to relationships and marriage being predicated on mutual attraction and common interests, but I do believe that we should move away from the more puerile aspects of modern dating. "Yeah, he's irresponsible and likes to sleep around, but he's sooo cute and funny." The first two should be automatic deal-breakers for any and all women. "Yeah, she plays mind-games and has cheated on me twice, but she's like sooo hot." Deal-breakers. See a pattern? Really, I think we should adjust our expectations from the ones presented in romantic flicks (Yes, it bums me out that I'm not going to marry Ryan Gosling) and raise some of our more practical standards. I hear a lot of my friends complain that there aren't any decent guys/girls, but I probably rub shoulders with a hundred or more each day. Sure, they may not be the skinniest girls or the tallest guys, but they'd make good partners and you aren't even giving them a chance.

Technology and our culture of whimsy haven't really fortified our prospects with regard to dating and marriage. I've been out with a few guys who would text friends and, presumably, other girls while on a date. The next time they asked me out, I ghosted them. I probably should have told them why I wasn't interested, but I didn't feel like dealing with the feigned indignation and insults that might have followed a frank conversation. And, in a long-term relationship, you need to be willing to fix things. That doesn't mean taking back a cheater or abuser, but you stick with someone through the financial ups and downs or when they put on a few pounds or when wrinkles begin to form on their face. You take your promises and vows seriously. You behave honorably and lovingly. You realize that loving someone isn't just a feeling. It's work. And sometimes it's hard. Love is kissing your husband good morning when you want to throttle him for snoring half the night. Love is offering to take out the trash after a long day at work because your wife is already busy chopping vegetables. Love is taking shifts with a bawling baby. It's not a teen drama or a rom com.

All very good points. Along the same lines, I was wondering if it would be best for someone who is gay or lesbian just to marry a person of the opposite sex who was nice and shared common interests so that they could have children and continue the family line, as opposed to marrying someone of the same sex because it would feel good. Any thoughts on this?

[Painisia]

(Shudders) Unfortunately a millennial. Yes obviously a generation with its own problems.
Though I am not your stereotypical hipster who thinks social is good because Denmark is socialist (when it is obviously not).

Cool. I'm Gen Z.

Reactionary youngsters united for a new age of monarchy

[Grenartia]

Opting out isn't good enough. There's still massive potential to be coerced into an undesired marriage.

I.E., "marry this person who raped you in high school and have kids with them, because their parents and us have a great business deal riding on it, or you're getting cut out of the will".

That last part absolutely still can happen under the current system.
I am sure the last part still happens.
Obviously steps should be taken to allow be people to easily and safely file reports of domestic violence and abuse.

But eliminating financial pressure from marriage is impossible.

Sure, but encouraging arranged marriages is only going to make that pressure harder.

I honestly don't have too many objections to relationships and marriage being predicated on mutual attraction and common interests, but I do believe that we should move away from the more puerile aspects of modern dating. "Yeah, he's irresponsible and likes to sleep around, but he's sooo cute and funny." The first two should be automatic deal-breakers for any and all women. "Yeah, she plays mind-games and has cheated on me twice, but she's like sooo hot." Deal-breakers. See a pattern? Really, I think we should adjust our expectations from the ones presented in romantic flicks (Yes, it bums me out that I'm not going to marry Ryan Gosling) and raise some of our more practical standards. I hear a lot of my friends complain that there aren't any decent guys/girls, but I probably rub shoulders with a hundred or more each day. Sure, they may not be the skinniest girls or the tallest guys, but they'd make good partners and you aren't even giving them a chance.

Technology and our culture of whimsy haven't really fortified our prospects with regard to dating and marriage. I've been out with a few guys who would text friends and, presumably, other girls while on a date. The next time they asked me out, I ghosted them. I probably should have told them why I wasn't interested, but I didn't feel like dealing with the feigned indignation and insults that might have followed a frank conversation. And, in a long-term relationship, you need to be willing to fix things. That doesn't mean taking back a cheater or abuser, but you stick with someone through the financial ups and downs or when they put on a few pounds or when wrinkles begin to form on their face. You take your promises and vows seriously. You behave honorably and lovingly. You realize that loving someone isn't just a feeling. It's work. And sometimes it's hard. Love is kissing your husband good morning when you want to throttle him for snoring half the night. Love is offering to take out the trash after a long day at work because your wife is already busy chopping vegetables. Love is taking shifts with a bawling baby. It's not a teen drama or a rom com.

All very good points. Along the same lines, I was wondering if it would be best for someone who is gay or lesbian just to marry a person of the opposite sex who was nice and shared common interests so that they could have children and continue the family line, as opposed to marrying someone of the same sex because it would feel good. Any thoughts on this?

No, its not. Its best to marry someone you actually love.

It also honestly seems like you want to be repressed by society, and either don't know or don't care how many other LGBT+ people get hurt in the process. Like, there are better, healthier, more productive ways to deal with whatever is causing you to want to be repressed than this.

[Nea Byzantia]

Cool. I'm Gen Z.

Reactionary youngsters united for a new age of monarchy

I mean you're not wrong...

[Novus America]

This is literally the state mandating sinful relationships.

You've absorbed unscriptural Catholic teachings about marriage and combined them with a brazen totalitarianism to produce something more resembling IngSoc than anything authentically Christian.

Well, I figure it is either that or permitting same-sex marriage. Which would you prefer?

We have had gay marriage several years now in the US, and nothing bad has come of it.
I would prefer the government only use the term civil union, but honestly it really has not been that big a deal, if anything it helps make them less likely to engage in the stereotypical (obviously not always true) image of gay promiscuity.

[Grenartia]

I would prefer the government only use the term civil union

Honest question: Why?

No religious group (or even religion as a whole) can honestly claim a monopoly on the term 'marriage'.

[Novus America]

That last part absolutely still can happen under the current system.
I am sure the last part still happens.
Obviously steps should be taken to allow be people to easily and safely file reports of domestic violence and abuse.

But eliminating financial pressure from marriage is impossible.

Sure, but encouraging arranged marriages is only going to make that pressure harder.

All very good points. Along the same lines, I was wondering if it would be best for someone who is gay or lesbian just to marry a person of the opposite sex who was nice and shared common interests so that they could have children and continue the family line, as opposed to marrying someone of the same sex because it would feel good. Any thoughts on this?

No, its not. Its best to marry someone you actually love.

It also honestly seems like you want to be repressed by society, and either don't know or don't care how many other LGBT+ people get hurt in the process. Like, there are better, healthier, more productive ways to deal with whatever is causing you to want to be repressed than this.

Admittedly that is a problem, that should be watched out for and we can take steps to address.
But having the family help find partners for those we are unable to do one their own and want the help is not a bad thing.

Obviously such a system should not be forced on anyone who does not want it.
But why prevent someone who wants the system from utilizing it?
It could help a lot of people, especially those not so socially outgoing.

[Nea Byzantia]

I would prefer the government only use the term civil union

No religious group (or even religion as a whole) can honestly claim a monopoly on the term 'marriage'.

Yes they can. Marriage is a religious concept. Fight me.

[Grenartia]

Sure, but encouraging arranged marriages is only going to make that pressure harder.



No, its not. Its best to marry someone you actually love.

It also honestly seems like you want to be repressed by society, and either don't know or don't care how many other LGBT+ people get hurt in the process. Like, there are better, healthier, more productive ways to deal with whatever is causing you to want to be repressed than this.

Admittedly that is a problem, that should be watched out for and we can take steps to address.
But having the family help find partners for those we are unable to do one their own and want the help is not a bad thing.

Obviously such a system should not be forced on anyone who does not want it.
But why prevent someone who wants the system from utilizing it?
It could help a lot of people, especially those not so socially outgoing.

As one of those people, I absolutely do not want my family choosing potential partners for me.

No religious group (or even religion as a whole) can honestly claim a monopoly on the term 'marriage'.

Yes they can. Marriage is a religious concept. Fight me.

Prove it.

[Hammer Britannia]

No religious group (or even religion as a whole) can honestly claim a monopoly on the term 'marriage'.

Yes they can. Marriage is a religious concept. Fight me.

Yeah, but your religion didn't start it.

So fight me

tbh, Christianity only became institutionalized by religion when the False Catholic Church got involved

[Nea Byzantia]

Admittedly that is a problem, that should be watched out for and we can take steps to address.
But having the family help find partners for those we are unable to do one their own and want the help is not a bad thing.

Obviously such a system should not be forced on anyone who does not want it.
But why prevent someone who wants the system from utilizing it?
It could help a lot of people, especially those not so socially outgoing.

As one of those people, I absolutely do not want my family choosing potential partners for me.

Yes they can. Marriage is a religious concept. Fight me.

Prove it.

Where does the concept of Marriage come from? The idea of one man, one woman. Where is that idea derived from, if not from religion?

[Nea Byzantia]

Yes they can. Marriage is a religious concept. Fight me.

Yeah, but your religion didn't start it.

So fight me

Paganism isn't a Religion.