[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 943: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 943: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead
Spengler Forum at First Things • View topic - How Are You Pronouncing "Pyrrhic"?

For discussion of David P. Goldman's writings

How Are You Pronouncing "Pyrrhic"?

Discussion on Spengler's blog postings and essays.

How Are You Pronouncing "Pyrrhic"?

Postby Spengler » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:00 am

How Are You Pronouncing "Pyrrhic"? on the Spengler Blog


by David P. Goldman


A degree of resignation over the gay marriage issue is evident from the conservative camp, marked by Matthew Lee Anderson's exchange with Ross Douthat over how supporters of traditional marriage should respond. It seems likely that our side will lose, but in my view we should fight tooth and nail such that our defeat--if, God forbid, it comes to that--will be a bitter and indelible memory. The memory part is important, for we will win eventually. If gay marriage succeeds, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

People who don't want traditional marriage, who consider a fetus a career inconvenience or children a drag on entertainment options, tend to have small families, or none at all. People of faith tend to have lots of children. A number of analysts have noticed this, including the popular writer Phillip Longman who wrote in 2004, "This much is sure: The uneducated have far more children than the educated, and the religiously minded generally have bigger families than do secularists. In the United States, for example, fully 47% of people who attend church weekly say that the ideal family size is three or more children, as opposed to only 27% of those who seldom attend church."

We see this in the microcosm of the Jewish community, where an Orthodox majority seems likely in two generations. The Modern Orthodox have three or four children, the ultra-Orthodox seven or eight, while liberal and secular Jews have one or two, and half of those intermarry. The diversity of American Christianity makes it harder to find numbers, but the principle is the same, as Longman indicated.

Life will triumph so long as enough people believe in life. I have little fear for America, although Europe may be lost.

One minor quibble with Douthat: He seems to think that divorce is just as bad as gay marriage.
The goal should be a world where the struggle to defend marriage is understood primarily as a struggle against divorce and out-of-wedlock births and premarital promiscuity, and not just a world where the law offers a particular distinction to Newt Gingrich’s third marriage that it doesn’t afford Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DeRossi. And if all that social conservatives can ever hope to accomplish is to keep homosexual couples from getting marriage licenses, then there’s a case to be made for living with the public redefinition of the institution, taking the older ideal private, and trying to rebuild a thicker culture of marriage from the ground up.

I agree with Ross that no-default divorce laws hurt family life and that divorce should be discouraged. If the core of the Western view of these matters derives from the Bible, though, it must be noted that there is no Biblical proscription against divorce. On the contrary, the Bible (which Catholics as well as Jews considered to be revealed truth) contains detailed laws of divorce. By contrast, the Bible everywhere considers homosexuality an abomination. Divorce may be a bad thing, and Christian denominations may forbid their members to divorce. But it should not be put on the same level as gay marriage.

This bears on a broader issue: Most people practiced religion in the past under the communal constraint of traditional society. Eastern European rabbis tended to discourage Jewish emigration to America a century ago because they knew that most Jews would give up observance once they got here. By the same token, mass attendance and birth rates have plunged in Quebec and other Catholic countries after the intrusion of modernity.

Orthodox Jews comprise just 10% of the notionally-Jewish population in the US; there are some members of Conservative synagogues who are observant, but it is hard to know how many. I don't know what proportion of American Catholics may be considered orthodox by rigorous Catholic standards, but it must be a minority.  A quarter of Americans consider themselves evangelical Christians.

People of traditional faith may or may not be a minority in America, but even if we are, we are self-regenerating and growing. The culture of death consumes itself. We will win, first of all because we will be the majority before long.

User avatar
Spengler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 am

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby G.B. Vico » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:18 am

Well, I suppose Ross Douthat had in mind Matthew 19:


3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
G.B. Vico
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:28 am

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby David Layman » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:13 am

How do you respond to the argument that we ought to politically disestablish marriage?

Such a strategy has two implications: Firstly, marriage would have no legal significance whatsoever--no bearing on taxation, benefits, discrimination law, etc.--other than that determined by private contracts. Secondly, religious communities would then have the freedom to define the religio-moral significance of "marriage" as they see fit, and thereby fence it as they choose.

Homosexuals would gain nothing, since everything they want is within the orbit of political and economic power (taxation, benefits, recognition, etc.). Orthodox Christians and observant Jews would only lose the endorsement of the state for their religiously-defined morality, which has only been a fitful and problematic largesse anyway.

Does such a strategy give away too much too soon? Put positively, what do Christians and Jews gain by holding onto the political establishment of marriage?
David Layman
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:20 am

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby CognitiveDistoibance » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:42 am

G.B. Vico wrote:Well, I suppose Ross Douthat had in mind Matthew 19:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

And possibly:

Malachi 2:13 “This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand.
14 “Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
15 “But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.
2:16 “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”

While the point remains that divorce is not treated with the same disapprobation as homosexuality, it hardly is without some distinct measure of disapprobation.
User avatar
CognitiveDistoibance
 
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:46 pm

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby CognitiveDistoibance » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:46 am

David Layman wrote:How do you respond to the argument that we ought to politically disestablish marriage?

Such a strategy has two implications: Firstly, marriage would have no legal significance whatsoever--no bearing on taxation, benefits, discrimination law, etc.--other than that determined by private contracts. Secondly, religious communities would then have the freedom to define the religio-moral significance of "marriage" as they see fit, and thereby fence it as they choose.

Homosexuals would gain nothing, since everything they want is within the orbit of political and economic power (taxation, benefits, recognition, etc.). Orthodox Christians and observant Jews would only lose the endorsement of the state for their religiously-defined morality, which has only been a fitful and problematic largesse anyway.

Does such a strategy give away too much too soon? Put positively, what do Christians and Jews gain by holding onto the political establishment of marriage?

As to the last question, the way this is going, it seems to me ... precious little. Arguably, any tax benefits can just accrue to those with children. But the term "marriage" seems to be going the way of postmodernity, which is to say bereft of meaning...
User avatar
CognitiveDistoibance
 
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:46 pm

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby dad29 » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:53 pm

IIRC, surveys show that about 35% of Catholics in the US attend Mass weekly. That's a good indicator of 'orthodoxy,' albeit not definitive.
dad29
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:44 pm

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby dad29 » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:59 pm

How do you respond to the argument that we ought to politically disestablish marriage?

The concept of removing the State from marriage contracts has been advanced by a few pundits.

Frankly, I think that's at the behest of their friends in politics, who live in fear and dread of actually taking a stand on the issue of gay 'marriage.'

The State has an interest--and a damn serious one at that--in preserving and fostering traditional families. On the other side, politicians have an interest in preserving and fostering their careers.
dad29
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:44 pm

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby WayneLusvardi » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:58 pm

Re: David Layman's comment that we "politically disestablish" marriage"

Layman's comment seems to presume there is no state interest in regulating marriage in the first place; that marriage has been a political contrivance all along. This is questionable from a sociological viewpoint. For a secular and feminist argument for protecting conventional marriage written by Sam Schulman, a Jewish thinker, read here:
http://kingdomboundbooks.com/documents/ ... hulman.pdf
WayneLusvardi
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:15 pm

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby David Layman » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:23 pm

I'm more in the way of asking for some discussion. To further that end:

Some observations, from Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages, by Frances and Joseph Gies:
  • Roman marriage was a "private, familial" event. In the Augustan period, No "official of the state" was "involved."
  • Marriage was an economic and social institution. A nominal bride purchase signified the transfer of legal authority over the bride from her father...to her husband,..." The economic nature of the relationship was underlined by the general prohibition or disapprobation of interclass marriage. You stayed on the same social (and thus economic) level.
  • In pagan Rome, adultery was a crime only for a woman. At a later stage, a wronged wife could recover her dowery. An equal penalty for adultery by both sexes was not levied until Constantine, under Christianity.
  • "Barbarian marriage was even more family-centered and male-dominated than was Roman." "Dissolution...was impossible for the wife, easy for the husband,...."
  • "In both [Roman and barbarian] worlds, transfer of property was a major legal and social element in marriage."
  • Christianity, of course, brought in the value of "love" of the husband for the wife, a measure of equality, and an equal condemnation of immorality by both spouses. The Gies see these themes as bringing a "higher imperative, idealistic, even mystical," beyond the "cool sex-and-property perceptions of the Romans and barbarians.
  • According to the Gies, "the Church Fathers recommended small families over large ones :shock: :P , the practice of continence for Lent and religious holidays, and insofar as possible, virginity for both sexes."

Now some observations of my own:
  • Marriage is primarily practical: a union of mates for the procreation of children. The sacral element is added later, in the west, specifically by Christianity.
  • Thanks to feminism and the high level of material well-being, the transfer of property does not now appear to be an significant element of the institution. Marriage is an institution of equals, ironically thanks in part to Christianity itself.
  • Along with feminism, the acceptance of artificial contraception by large segments of Christianity has also cut the bond between marriage and procreation. I do not see how Christians at least can consistently defend the use of artificial contraception by married couples, and criticize homosexuals for inherently barren sexual acts. (I'll leave it to Goldman and others for articulating a Jewish response to this problem, which, being based on halakha, will be different.)
  • Consequently, modern western marriage lacks the components of:
    • a man taking possession of a woman from her father
    • a union necessarily oriented towards procreation
    • rendering the animal act of copulation a sacred and moral duty.

So what exactly is marriage? Our social institutions, which in part have been formed by Christianity (and thus, indirectly, Judaism) have deconstructed the fundamental premises upon which the moral opposition to homosexualism and the gay agenda can be built. Those of us who share that opposition cannot refer to common premises, since our society no longer shares them.

I share Mr. Goldman's willingness to fight to the bitter end. I just want to be clear what I am fighting for.

Christian marriage is not a romantic relationship, but a moral, covenantal, and (for some Christians) sacramental one. It is interesting to note that the standard halakhic definition of marriage for Jews remains closer to the traditional one of antiquity: marriage is constituted by (1)sexual relations (2) a contract (3) an exchange of money (Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1).
Normally all conditions must be met, but any one is sufficient (http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm ).

A further problem is the incommensurable nature of Christian and post-Christian morality.

Finally, there is the problematic character of the marriage-institution of Christendom.
In "Christendom" this is what Christianity is: a man with a woman on his arm steps up to the altar, where a smart silken priest, half educated in the poets, half in the New Testament, delivers an address half erotic, half Christian--a wedding ceremony. -- Kierkegaard, Attack Upon "Christendom": "The Christianity of the Spiritual Man/The Christianity of Us Men"
David Layman
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:20 am

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby Spengler » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:03 pm

Politically disestablishing marriage is a fallback position -- retreating to caves in the hills, as it were. The Catholics like it the least because from a natural law standpoint, a conflict between the ordinary practice of society and the sacramental practice of the Church confuses the faithful. The Jews, who are used to being a minority, will mind the least (except for the Reform who support gay marriage as it is). If we have have to retreat to those caves, it is only to await the opportunity to swoop down from the hills and expel the enemy occupation.
User avatar
Spengler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 am

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby Booklady » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:58 pm

Spengler wrote:Politically disestablishing marriage is a fallback position -- retreating to caves in the hills, as it were. The Catholics like it the least because from a natural law standpoint, a conflict between the ordinary practice of society and the sacramental practice of the Church confuses the faithful. The Jews, who are used to being a minority, will mind the least (except for the Reform who support gay marriage as it is). If we have have to retreat to those caves, it is only to await the opportunity to swoop down from the hills and expel the enemy occupation.

Like Pelayo in the 7th century, against the muslim invaders?
It is a dangerous thing to be satisfied with ourselves--Santa Teresa de Ávila
User avatar
Booklady
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:03 pm

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby CognitiveDistoibance » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:34 am

David Layman wrote:I'm more in the way of asking for some discussion. To further that end:

Now some observations of my own:
  • Marriage is primarily practical: a union of mates for the procreation of children.
Agreed. Small quibble over the procreation aspect. Procreation of children is comparatively easy. Raising serviceable adults (the state's ultimate interest IMV) is hard.

David Layman wrote:
    ...
  • Along with feminism, the acceptance of artificial contraception by large segments of Christianity has also cut the bond between marriage and procreation. I do not see how Christians at least can consistently defend the use of artificial contraception by married couples, and criticize homosexuals for inherently barren sexual acts.

Quibble extended. Procreation / contraception is not quite the entire point. And even given a rational desire to prevent conception, success on that front is not 100%--or even close to 100%. With heterosexual marriage + contraception, kidlet (and eventual serviceable adult) output is still much more likely than homosexual marriage + contrived conception.

David Layman wrote:Christian marriage is not a romantic relationship, ...

I might add that it is my sense that historically any marriage, christian or otherwise has not been primarily a romantic relationship...

David Layman wrote:but a moral, covenantal, and (for some Christians) sacramental one. ...

Yes.

David Layman wrote:A further problem is the incommensurable nature of Christian and post-Christian morality.

Indeed, it seems to me that in some sense, christians are going to have to learn how to be protestant all over again. (To reprise your former use of the term with respect to Muslims.) The alternative, it seems to me, is to share common cause at some conceptual level with advocates of shariah. I do not say that with any pleasure--and I do say it with great reluctance--but such is where my thoughts to date lead me as I kick against the goads. :twisted:

On the secular / "protestant" front, ultimately, if there are tax and other benefits, they need to be tied to the raising of serviceable adults. (Which will prove too hard, I suppose, and we'll settle on procreation. Sigh.) This will obviously largely still encourage and benefit heterosexual pairings*.

    * I fear greatly for the children raised in homosexual environments, but I do not think anything can be done for it, at present--or sadly the foreseeable future. If one allows (I don't) that sexual orientation has zero personal choice component and that X% of children to heterosexual couples cannot help but be homosexual, and that a homosexual child raised by heterosexual parents experiences some trauma, it seems inescapable to me to conclude that 100%-x% of heterosexual children raised by homosexual parents will not evade comparable (or worse) trauma. Granted that trauma is trauma, but unless involuntary sexual orientation approaches 50%, overall trauma is minimized by heterosexual parenting.
User avatar
CognitiveDistoibance
 
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:46 pm

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby Spengler » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:23 am

Some forms of contraception, the pill in particular, are acceptable under Jewish law provided that a married couple is committed to fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Orthodox Jews are encouraged to have at least three children, preferably more -- but as long as that is the intent, there is some flexibility about timing. Judaism also sanctions divorce, although it certainly doesn't encourage serial adultery. Given that Orthodox Jews have one of the highest fertility rates among Americans, banning contraception and divorce do not seem to be the sine qua non of a healthy family life. I should add the Orthodox Jews have a much lower divorce rate than the general population and generally express greater contentment about their marriages. Must be the cholent.
User avatar
Spengler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 am

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby David Layman » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:54 am

CognitiveDistoibance wrote:
Small quibble over the procreation aspect. Procreation of children is comparatively easy. Raising serviceable adults (the state's ultimate interest IMV) is hard.

...
Quibble extended. Procreation / contraception is not quite the entire point. And even given a rational desire to prevent conception, success on that front is not 100%--or even close to 100%. With heterosexual marriage + contraception, kidlet (and eventual serviceable adult) output is still much more likely than homosexual marriage + contrived conception.


You are quite right to quibble. I was immersed in gathering the material from the Gies, and overlooked articulating the precise point you are making.
David Layman
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:20 am

Re: How Are You Pronouncing

Postby Michael » Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:56 am

I would commend to anyone interested in this subject, the report of the Commission on the Family and the Rights of Children (the “Pécresse Report”) laid before the French National Assembly on 25 January 2006

Pace Vaughn Walker j., the commission were able to advance a reasoned and secular defence of the prohibition of same-sex marriage, in the context of marriage as
un pilier de la République laïque – A pillar of the secular Republic (not a perfect translation)

From their premises that "The primacy of the interests of the child ought to be guaranteed" (64) and that "Republican marriage should remain the foundational institution of the family - Le mariage républicain doit rester l'institution fondatrice de la famille " (100) and that "Marriage is the form that best mantains the interests of the child" (100), the report concludes that "Male-female 'otherness' should continue as the basis of marriage - L'altérité homme-femme doit continuer de fonder le mariage"


Again and again, the Commission stressed the rights of children and argued (rightly, I believe) that the questions of marriage, adoption and assisted fertility must be addressed together.

On the question of adoption by same-sex couples and the welfare of the child, they pointed to the lack of evidence as to outcomes, refusing to conflate (as is often done) adoption by a same-sex couple and the rearing of a child by a biological parent and that parent’s same-sex companion. On the question of assisted fertility, they endorsed the French policy of permitting this, only in the case of a pathological condition and never for “conceptions of convenience.”

As for claims of equality, the commission adopted the reasoning of the courts in the Bègles case in 2004/5.
This declaration of nullity was based on arguments in French law and European law. The court found that while the Civil Code did not refer expressly to a sex difference between spouses, that was because it went without saying for the drafters of the Code; the court mentioned a number of articles in the Code that refer, in connection with marriage, to a man and a woman. It also recalled the intent of the legislators in 1999: “Debates and legislative provisions respecting the PACS and cohabitation referred clearly to a difference in sex as a basic condition and a specific characteristic of marriage.” Lastly, it felt that the European Convention on Human Rights was not violated, either in relation to article 12, which protects the right to marry, jurisprudence having confirmed that this concerned only people of different sexes, or in relation to article 8, concerning the right to respect for private and family life, the existence of a right for homosexual couples to live together being allowed in other circumstances, or in relation to article 14, which prohibits, among other things, “discrimination on any ground such as sex… or other status”, which includes sexual orientation. Making the essence of these arguments its own, the Court of Appeal went so far as to consider that “a difference in sex is a condition for the very existence of marriage” and that consequently, the celebration that was declared null “cannot be considered a marriage”.


One conclusion worth pondering on is this:-
The family is increasingly centred on the child. In the face of changes in family life and conjugal relations in particular, the child appears to be the only enduring reality. Whereas in the past, marriage was the prerequisite for the formation of a family, today the prerequisite is essentially the presence of children[/i]


As is this warning: -
André Burguière believes that the desire for children recently became individualized: “People want a child for themselves.” Thus, this desire is “both more relative and more intense than ever.” This means that it is no longer reserved for heterosexual couples, but shared by single men and women and same-sex couples. And it is developing into a right to children that society should allow for. Such a development is at odds with the ethical principles enshrined in the laws of France, particularly the prohibition against making children the subject and source of a transaction. [cf « il n'y a que les choses qui sont dans le commerce qui puissent être l'objet des conventions » (It is only things which are objects of commerce that can be the object of agreements.)(article 1128 du code civil)]
Michael
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:46 pm
Location: Alba

Next

Return to Spengler's Writings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron