People that vote conservative tend to reproduce. People who reproduce tend to vote conservative. People who live in places where the environment is favorable to reproduction tend to vote conservative, because they are apt to worry about the future. Leftist in power make the environment less favorable to reproduction, thereby making the electorate lefter, by making the electorate less worried about the long term fate of the political system.
In the long run we are all dead – but our children are not.
The major factor stopping reproduction is inability to make a valid binding and enforceable reproductive contract, a contract wherein a man agrees to be a father to all his children by a woman and only by that woman, and that woman agrees to have children by that man and only that man, or else a binding and enforceable contract wherein a woman agrees to be always sexually available to one man and only that man and a man agrees to be a father to all his children by that woman and only by that woman
Observe that the Philippines, which has traditional marriage and has cute stewardesses, is the last Christian country on earth with a reasonable fertility rate.
This could not (ugly stewardesses and stewards) and would not (PC) happen on an American airline today.
Forbidding cute stewardesses is part of, either in intention or effect, a political policy of devaluing and denigrating the traditional role of women – which necessarily has the effect of reducing the number of women performing their traditional role.
If you have easy divorce, you have a policy of treating women as men. If you have a policy of treating women as men, you cannot cry vive la différence.
A state policy of not enforcing sex differences, becomes a state policy of forcibly suppressing sex differences – which necessarily tends to end reproduction, thereby moving society leftwards.
Notice I said reproductive contract. Gay marriage is in part a sincere attempt by gays to adopt a more monogamous lifestyle but it is in part a spiteful effort to épater le bourgeois, to render marriage ridiculous, disgusting and repugnant. The latter effort has succeeded, regardless of what good intentions some gays may have. As with any new euphemism, the euphemism swiftly becomes a swear word, and has to be replaced by a new word, for which I propose “reproductive contractâ€.
The word “marriedâ€, like the words “gayâ€, “retard†and each previous euphemism, will necessarily become a curse word, is already becoming a curse word. I don’t think most people in the gay marriage movement intend that “marriage†should become a curse word, rather, they genuinely hope to adopt less self destructive lifestyle that more resembles that of heterosexuals, but they did not intend that “gay†would become a curse word either. They intended that people would continue to use the word “gay†to mean cheerful and lighthearted, but of course what they intended did not happen. Instead “gayâ€, like “retardâ€, became an astonishingly potent curse word.
And some people in the gay marriage movement do intend that “marriage†should become a curse word, and are succeeding. When the state forces everyone to use the word “marriage†for relationships that are in many cases ostentatiously and spectacularly vile, disgusting, self destructive, and perverse, everyone will swiftly come to use the word “marriage†to mean a relationship that is vile, disgusting, self destructive and perverse. Such is the fate of every euphemism, and especially every state enforced euphemism. The left, aka the state, indignantly opposed “gay†becoming a curse word, and still piously pretend it is not a curse word, but by and large the left, aka the state, is enthusiastically pushing along the transition of the word “marriage†to curse word.
Pretty soon, just as heterosexuals who are having fun are no longer “gayâ€, heterosexuals who have committed to be permanently together will no longer be “marriedâ€, which outcome will disappoint some gays just as much as the transition of “gay†to curse word – but will greatly please a lot of politicians.
I don’t know about marriage becoming a swear word, but it’s definitely a word used to describe male slavery. You don’t own your kids, you don’t own your women’s sexuality, and you don’t even own the fruits of your labor. If you can’t pay, then the judge tosses you in jail. Children in general are viewed as a danger to men instead of a continuation of life.
None of my friends are married because the chances of being randomly enslaved is just too high.
When used to mean “married to the state”, married is indeed a curse word.
Your overall point is fine — the left attempts to revise vocabulary under the theory that irrational prejudice is the only reason that stops people from accepting difference. Of course, their theory is wrong. Naturally the new association causes the new word, originally neutral, to mean whatever it is now referring to — including all bad associations.
However, I am skeptical about this particular case, “marriage”. Unlike the case with “gay”, “negro”, or “retarded”, there is no other simple word that expresses the idea. You have to go to a klonky phrase like “reproductive contract”. People will resist that sheerly for lack of vocabulary.
My guess is gay marriage will come to be seen as a valid, but somewhat penumbral, kind of marriage, like two 50-year-old heterosexuals. Obviously they are not marrying as a reproductive contract.
We will get along without a word that means a legal and social commitment to stick together, because we don’t have a legally or socially enforceable commitment to stick together.
The word is being destroyed in part because the thing it refers to is being destroyed.
People are going to say that the word “marriage†retains it’s old meaning, just as they say that “gay†is not a curse word, but when Romeo and Juliet marry, the audience is going to titter, as if the monk had proclaimed Juliet to be Romeo’s bedwarmer.
In a few years, when they perform “Romeo and Juliet†they will leave out references to Romeo and Juliet’s marriage for fear of inappropriate audience reaction, and yet anyone who suggests the meaning of the word has changed will be deemed obviously crazy, and will very likely lose his job.
You can lose your job for noticing that “gay†is a curse word, yet somehow strangely the second verse of “Deck the halls†has been dropped out of the Christmas Carol rotation.
is already becoming a curse word.
What?!? Where?
People are going to say that the word “marriage†retains it’s old meaning, just as they say that “gay†is not a curse word, but when Romeo and Juliet marry, the audience is going to titter, as if the monk had proclaimed Juliet to be Romeo’s bedwarmer.
“Gay” is not embedded as a sacrament in the world’s largest religion. “Marriage” is, and its original meaning cannot be completely effaced from society without the prior erasure of every trace of Judeo-Christianity, something that will not happen, current attempts notwithstanding. I really think you’re reaching on this one, Jim.
Christianity died some time ago and I doubt it can be resurrected, though I suppose some would say it has become tiny and hidden as mustard seed, and like a mustard seed, can wait long ages for more favorable times.
The New Testament endorses and commands patriarchal and indissoluble marriage. In the 1960s, every Christian Church everywhere endorsed patriarchal and indissoluble marriage. Today, every church everywhere opposes indissoluble or patriarchal marriage. In due course, every church everywhere will celebrate marriages with chains, black leather, condoms and giant dildoes.
Christianity died some time ago
No, it didn’t. Anyway, marriage is part of Islam, too.
In due course, every church everywhere will celebrate marriages with chains, black leather, condoms and giant dildoes.
Seriously? This isn’t the Jim I thought I knew.
And if Islam wins, as well they might, they will not permit gay marriage.
What the Church means by marriage has changed almost beyond recognition since the sixties. What makes you think it will change no further?
There might well be a mustard seed sized church that holds to old fashioned Christianity, but since it is impossible to find a modern church that holds the 1960 position on marrage, let alone the 1830 position on marriage, (which is the one endorsed in the New Testament) what makes you think that in another fifty years, there will be a church that holds the 2010 position on marriage? Today’s Christianity blows with the wind, and you can see which way the wind blows.
I remember the Judeo Christianity of the 1960s, and I would say we are well on the way to erasing every trace of it.
“This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.”
WCF XXV:iv
And,
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt 16:18
You are seeing the collapse of Christianity as a mainstream institution in the West, but that doesn’t mean that there are no true churches. If you look hard enough, you can find them, though not in most of Western Europe.
You have all recorded history of linguistic evolution against you. The bad meaning always destroys the good meaning, it is never added to the good meaning.
That is because there is something good about being a Yankee, and nothing wrong with being a Papist.
Disphemisms failing to have the desired effect is the flip side of euphemisms failing to have the desired effect. Terms of derision for good things, such as Yankee, fail to retain their derisive meaning. Terms of approbation for bad things, such as gay, fail to retain their approbative meaning. Shortly after everyone was forced to use the word gay, you stopped hearing the second verse of “Deck the Hallsâ€.
Now on television, a gay couple act just like a married couple, but in real life they frequently do not. Thus if everyone is forced to call a gay couple who are hunting boys as a team “marriedâ€, marriage will lose its approbative meaning.
As for “niggerâ€: search for tweets using the word “niggerâ€. You will find those using the term are mostly black, and are in large part using it to refer to stupidity, ignorance, violence, and robbery by blacks. Efforts to give the word “nigger†an approbative meaning have been even less successful than the effort to prevent “gay†from becoming a curse word. When black people use the word “niggerâ€, they are jokingly or not so jokingly implying that the person they refer is stupid, limited in his ability to read, speak, or understand speech, violent, lazy, dishonest, apt to get in stupid fights for stupid reasons, and, in case I forgot to mention it, stupid.
Pretty young things dancing in front of status-selected men are advertising their availability. Availability for what, though? In a decent society, for marriage. And, as you say, marriage has the effect of ensuring a turnover in the pretty young things, because hubby does not want his pretty young wife advertising her availability—because that would be availability for something else.
Once we move away from a decent society, they are advertising their availability for sex. This, in the intermediate term, has the paradoxical effect of turning them into hatchet-faced, angry, fifty-year-olds whom nobody wants to see dancing. So, the television show Pan Am has to be set when it is set—at a time when society is in transition from decency to indecency. Otherwise, either the pretty young things are not advertising their availability for sex or there are no pretty young things.
I think “Covenant,” short for “Covenant Marriage” is the way to go, terminologically. But, the homos will just move on this term as well.
There’s always been a portion of the female population that become sluts/whores/bed warmers even in the most decent societies. It’s just the nature of humanity.
Having young pretty women dancing around is a celebration of fertility. I don’t know why you would care if they were getting married or not. That’s kind of their parents responsibly, not yours.
That’s sad. For a start, try putting this search term (without the quotes) into bing: “unwin site:blog.reaction.la”
The feminists are right about one thing. Those of us on the real right are interested in social control over female sexual behavior. Some of us for reasons of Divine Law and some of us for reasons of Natural Law. Some of us even grasp that those two are pretty much the same. It has taken many decades of active enstupidification for views such as the one you express to become first socially acceptable and then socially mandatory.
AS I argue in another post, women really do not much like emancipation, and are psychologically poorly adapted to it.
I don’t think you understand how that societal control is achieved. Fathers own their daughters, and society looks down on them for not keeping them virginal before marriage and their husbands keeping them faithful there after. Control is achieved by giving responsibility and shame to the men of the family.
I see whores and sluts as normal for a small portion of the population. We should of course look down on them as their contribution to our society is small. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enjoy them. The people we should really look down on is their families who allow their daughters to become sluts or whores and husbands who allow their wives to stray. Check the history books and your will find this is how most patriarchal societies viewed the world.
This is certainly how Islam does it. Furthermore, there was certainly some of that in Christendom as well. However, women took care of a lot of it themselves via slut-shaming, and non-paternal men took care of some of it via mate selection. Finally, a society that clearly preaches its social norms seems a lot more likely to keep them than one which does not.
Put another way, why should a father bother to keep his daughter virginal in today’s West?
The RC, where a man and women exclusively agree to open their respective wallets and legs, has much value and is a concept that deserves to be sketched-out in earnest. Yes, the White Knights in the legal system would never uphold such an abomination in the eyes of Feminism, but the present order is in inexorable collapse. Some order will rise on the other side of it. It might as well be Johnny-on-the-Spot with a well-crafted solution.