Thread: The Oblivion of Marriage and the Coming Demographic Crisis

Originally Posted by Polednice

Is that you, DrMike?! America's problem is too much piety.

Well, that's true too.

Basically we have too much fundamentalist-style piety, and not enough of the old "Establishment" mainline piety.

Essentially, that is synonymous with, decency is no longer a value that people take seriously.

Originally Posted by Fsharpmajor

Attachment 3121

That's why.

Well, I guess the confusion lies in the fact that people don't usually clarify whether they're referring to an organized religion type of personal God, or just the simple concept of the world having a creator who may or may not care about what we do with our genitals.

By the way, the second part of my post, the part you didn't quote, was very important. My post looks much more serious without it.

In practice "god" or "the gods" are a projection of someone's values onto the cosmos and its mysteries. The question is, whose values? "God" has lost respect because the people whose values he reflected have lost respect. In Europe, that is the old aristocracies and elite bourgeois leaders. In the South, that is the old Segregationists, my grandfather's and great-grandfather's generation. In the north and west of the US it is the old "Establishment." Now the values we would project are status-via-consumption, tolerance, and leisure. New religious traditions are appearing in part to do so for us.

I don't know; just guessing.

Originally Posted by Dodecaplex

Well, I guess the confusion lies in the fact that people don't usually clarify whether they're referring to an organized religion type of personal God, or just the simple concept of the world having a creator who may or may not care about what we do with our genitals.

By the way, the second part of my post, the part you didn't quote, was very important. My post looks much more serious without it.

Yes, I admit that I quoted you out of context. And it's never been all that clear to me, either, why the Creator of a universe with roughly fifty billion galaxies, each with roughly fifty billion stars, is so fixedly obsessed with the affairs of the bedroom.

Originally Posted by Fsharpmajor

And it's never been all that clear to me, either, why the Creator of a universe with roughly fifty billion galaxies, each with roughly fifty billion stars, is so fixedly obsessed with the affairs of the bedroom.

Because of this:

Originally Posted by science

In practice "god" or "the gods" are a projection of someone's values onto the cosmos and its mysteries.

Originally Posted by Fsharpmajor

Yes, I admit that I quoted you out of context. And it's never been all that clear to me, either, why the Creator of a universe with roughly fifty billion galaxies, each with roughly fifty billion stars, is so fixedly obsessed with the affairs of the bedroom.

My analysis is that He didn't, and He isn't.

Originally Posted by Dodecaplex

Why are people so intent on attacking God in every way they can? I almost feel sorry for the poor myth.

I'm more concerned by people attacking other people and cramming their views down other's throats because a magic man in the sky says it's the thing to do.

Originally Posted by science

Well, that's true too.

Basically we have too much fundamentalist-style piety, and not enough of the old "Establishment" mainline piety.

Essentially, that is synonymous with, decency is no longer a value that people take seriously.

When exactly was this great era of decency?

Originally Posted by Couchie

When exactly was this great era of decency?

I don't think it's fair to interpret my post to mean that there was something like a "great era of decency," only that it used to be valued quite a bit more than it is today. You probably know this: talking about decency probably sounds old-fashioned and naive to you, like the Jimmy Stewart character in It's a Wonderful Life. Of course that's how it sounds to most people today. But in those old days, it sounded elevating/uplifting and challenging/inspiring.

So when was decency so valued? It would take research to find out, but I'd guess it came to prominence in the Enlightenment and was doing a lot of good until it was brushed aside in the 1960s in favor of alternatives like authenticity, tough-mindedness, and tolerance.

I don't mean that those aren't also values, but the complexity of life is that values often conflict, and pendulums swing.

Originally Posted by science

So when was decency so valued? It would take research to find out, but I'd guess it came to prominence in the Enlightenment and was doing a lot of good until it was brushed aside in the 1960s in favor of alternatives like authenticity, tough-mindedness, and tolerance.

So back in the day of whorehouses, when men could beat their wives silly and there was nothing they could do about it, when materialistic capitalism got so bad people thought up communism? Oh and nobody had rights except for those who were white and "decent".

Originally Posted by Couchie

So back in the day of whorehouses, when men could beat their wives silly and there was nothing they could do about it, when materialistic capitalism got so bad people thought up communism? Oh and nobody had rights except for those who were white and "decent".

"Back in the day of whorehouses"?

Science is probably talking about 'decency' as an ideal, and that it may have been a more valued ideal during the Enlightenment. As you probably know, no ideal has common currency, if it did it wouldn't be an ideal.

Personally, 'decency' is too vague a term; I have to break it down some before I can handle it.

It's a weird time right now. There are so many laws and regulations in a time when the rule of law is being undermined and disregarded by those in government and business. How does this correlate to the rejection of the marriage contract by individuals, or doesn't it? Is there a general evasion of commitment and responsibility in society at large, or is it a personal liberty issue?

Originally Posted by Hilltroll72

"Back in the day of whorehouses"?

Science is probably talking about 'decency' as an ideal, and that it may have been a more valued ideal during the Enlightenment. As you probably know, no ideal has common currency, if it did it wouldn't be an ideal.

Personally, 'decency' is too vague a term; I have to break it down some before I can handle it.

The idea seems to hinder on moral authorities, probably religious, to give us a barometer for what is decent and what is not. It was more articulately defined what is and isn't decent in the past so people knew what to strive for. With the diminishing importance of religion in society what is "decent" is becoming increasingly up to the individual to decide and live according to whatever standard of decency they see fit. So it's not that people value decency less, but people have very different standards of decency. Where these standards differ will be perceived as "indecency" by others (ie. two dudes doing it).

Originally Posted by Couchie

The idea seems to hinder on moral authorities, probably religious, to give us a barometer for what is decent and what is not. It was more articulately defined what is and isn't decent in the past so people knew what to strive for. With the diminishing importance of religion in society what is "decent" is becoming increasingly up to the individual to decide and live according to whatever standard of decency they see fit. So it's not that people value decency less, but people have very different standards of decency. Where these standards differ will be perceived as "indecency" by others (ie. two dudes doing it).

Looks like you are mixing up three or four different things there - which is why 'decency' is too ill-defined a concept. I think I have a handle on this stuff, but this isn't the forum for expounding on it, and you are probably not sufficiently awed by my wisdom. My cult following is not extensive.

Originally Posted by starthrower

It's a weird time right now. There are so many laws and regulations in a time when the rule of law is being undermined and disregarded by those in government and business. How does this correlate to the rejection of the marriage contract by individuals, or doesn't it? Is there a general evasion of commitment and responsibility in society at large, or is it a personal liberty issue?

I think you and I have similar notions about what's going on in government and business. It's probably a stretch to tie the marriage contract situation to that, but for the rest of it, I dunno what the eff is going on.