How Are You Pronouncing "Pyrrhic"?

[ST]

(the kidlets) and then
(plus kidlets) and
kidlets

kidlets
brood

spawn

If one didn't know your outlook was fundamentally (Judeo)Christian, one could be forgiven for assuming one is reading the scribblings of a bunch of hardened Darwininsts, who only cared about reproduction, reproduction at all costs.

I know this will sound outrageous to the more legally and religiously minded people here, but some poor fools think that perhaps marriage might be about an essential affirmation of love between two people, a temporary reproduction on Earth of the more permanent merging between human and Absolute.

Again, apologies for this unwelcomed intrusion. Keep going as you were.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

(the kidlets) and then
(plus kidlets) and
kidlets

kidlets
brood

spawn

If one didn't know your outlook was fundamentally (Judeo)Christian, one could be forgiven for assuming one is reading the scribblings of a bunch of hardened Darwininsts, who only cared about reproduction, reproduction at all costs.

You detect a pattern? While it is true that I hardly share Darwinian presuppositions, I'm ok with being co-belligerent with him on occasion.

I know this will sound outrageous to the more legally and religiously minded people here, but some poor fools think that perhaps marriage might be about an essential affirmation of love between two people, a temporary reproduction on Earth of the more permanent merging between human and Absolute.

Not outrageous IMV. But I do hold that marriage is not a me-centered excercise. (Though I quickly admit, even most heterosexuals enter into it under this delusion--yet there remains hope that some will recover.) IMHO, marriage intially is (or should be) we-centered (spouses (+ diety, in fact, but I'll settle for spouses alone)) whose ultimate expression of we-ness is kidlets possessing we-based DNA. (Not to exclude adoptions, infertility and so forth, but I am speaking in the main.)

In other words, progression of conscious (if irrational) self-sacrifice:

1. Prior to marriage, self-sacrifice (of at least short term benefits) for one's own long term self. (a.k.a., a measure of personal responsibility.)
2. Self-sacrifice for one's spouse.
3. Joint self-sacrifice for one's offspring.

If, as is alleged from time to time, it is better to give than receive, a marriage based on giving to each other, and then thus extended to 20+ year joint projects, is, in fact, a far greater thing than a marriage concerned merely with self-oriented objectives. Thus my comment earlier that a me-oriented marriage, even among heterosexuals, isn't. Having kids will change you--or should.

Just yesterday ran into another manifestation of this, coaching youth baseball. A 12-year old figuratively being pulled limb from limb between two divorced "parents." Sadly, I care more about this kid than the parents, though they can hardly see that.

... a temporary reproduction on Earth of the more permanent merging between human and Absolute.

A "reproduction" you say?

I hope you will forgive my christian presuppositions if I find the relationship of the Absolute to the human to be a non-trivial example of self-sacrifice.

Again, apologies for this unwelcomed intrusion. Keep going as you were.

Speaking at least for myself, you are most welcome here sir.

Perhaps if you stick around, the discourse here might include a few more velociraptor references.

[Michael]

I agree with CD and would only point out that the fact that marriage as a legal institution has more to do with the verticle, than the horizontal, axis of human relationships, says nothing at all about its romantic, emotional or, indeed, its sacramental aspects.

[ST]

CD and Michael,

I am the first one to agree that "legally" Marriage is all about bestowing rights upon the kidlets, so that they alone and not the other bastards the powerful father might have sired get to inherit all that wealth upon the Big Man's death.

Yes, Marriage was all about death. It was about early death, about death in Childbirth, about all sorts of horrible things that used to happen to people all the time.

Yet now we live for nearly a century. Life expectancy is growing at 2 years per decade, and seems set to accelerate even further. Making sure that a new generation comes along to replace us, so that they are there with strong arms to ensure that we are not hacked to pieces by Barbarians when old and infirm is no longer such a pressing concern when deadly UAVs and nuclear missiles require naught but the gentle touch of a button.

Is it that surprising really that when life can be tasted, for the first time, at this new, leisurely pace, breeding is no longer the main priority? CD talks about self-sacrifice in this context as if it were a sacred and vital duty, which it sure was. It is as if the only purpose in life can be found by pumping out offspring. As if I am nothing but my own genes' way of making more of themselves. Such a cold view of life. If I truly wanted to do that, there are thousands of innocent, foolish teenage girls around who are opposed to abortion on ethical grounds. I am sure I could trick a few dozen into siring my bastards. The only difference between this and CD's ideal is a shift in focus from quantity to quality, but it is otherwise essentially the same thing, when all the cutesy 'joint-project' talk is set aside. But surely, there's more to life than that.

Speaking for myself now, from the perspective of a man, at least, children are nice, but one may as well have them at 50 as at 20, and enjoy 30 years of diaper-less and how-will-I-pay-for-college-less self-discovery. Sure, it is a tad more difficult for women, but either we'll find a way around that or simply skip a female generation. And yes, it might sound selfish. It is selfish. I am selfish. I don't have a problem with being selfish.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

... Is it that surprising really that when life can be tasted, for the first time, at this new, leisurely pace, breeding is no longer the main priority? ...

Ah, but perhaps we shall soon be disabused of our present leisurely vector.

And if what you contend is so, why is not the act that (without intervention) precipitates breeding no longer a main priority?

Indeed, is not this "paired couple" concept yet another quaint and vestigal remnant of some bygone biological imperative that no longer serves any purpose? Should not those who deny the biological purpose of marriage also deny its otherwise arbitrary "two-ness" construct? To deny its purpose and yet accept its form (and yearn for both its label and seeming impramatur) strikes me as most self-contradictory.

... CD talks about self-sacrifice in this context as if it were a sacred and vital duty, which it sure was. It is as if the only purpose in life can be found by pumping out offspring. ...

The only purpose in life? Ah, not so. But self-sacrifice for others as the highest purpose in life? To that some may legitimately aspire. Indeed, the highest such expressions are oft made toward those with whom one has not shared or mingled DNA. But candidly, pursuing self-sacrifice for those with whom one shares and mingles DNA is an awfully good start, and seemingly quite beyond the the capability of all.

... As if I am nothing but my own genes' way of making more of themselves. Such a cold view of life. If I truly wanted to do that, there are thousands of innocent, foolish teenage girls around who are opposed to abortion on ethical grounds. I am sure I could trick a few dozen into siring my bastards. The only difference between this and CD's ideal is a shift in focus from quantity to quality, but it is otherwise essentially the same thing, when all the cutesy 'joint-project' talk is set aside. But surely, there's more to life than that.

Good heavens, man! Generating offspring is the easy part. See here.

Speaking for myself now, from the perspective of a man, at least, children are nice, but one may as well have them at 50 as at 20, and enjoy 30 years of diaper-less and how-will-I-pay-for-college-less self-discovery. Sure, it is a tad more difficult for women, but either we'll find a way around that or simply skip a female generation. And yes, it might sound selfish. It is selfish. I am selfish. I don't have a problem with being selfish.

Such a cold view of life.

[Pastaneta]

but some poor fools think that perhaps marriage might be about an essential affirmation of love between two people, a temporary reproduction on Earth of the more permanent merging between human and Absolute.

Well no. I have a very strong marriageand my children are grown up but the only reason I married 30 some years ago was to have children. If not for that who needs it? You can have a Pacs, an informal arrangement etc. etc Two adults can contract whatever they want, it changes when you bring children into the equation. Because of them and because of them only the State has an interest in the institution of marriage. You don't need the State or an Institution for the affirmation of love.

Ah, but perhaps we shall soon be disabused of our present leisurely vector.

I think you are right...

[CognitiveDistoibance]

You don't need the State or an Institution for the affirmation of love.

Bingo!

I might also add that love, sans self-sacrifice, isn't.

[ST]

You don't need the State or an Institution for the affirmation of love.

Fair enough. To the trashcan with it, I say.

If the state is so useless when it comes to love between two adults, I might ask, why do you need the State to have and raise children, whom we're genetically conditioned to adore and coddle?

Is it the fear that the father will run away? Well, if that's what you're worried about, have the potential father set up an escrow as a guarantee he won't leave while the child is a minor.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

... Speaking for myself now, from the perspective of a man, at least, children are nice, but one may as well have them at 50 as at 20 ...

If you will accept the advice of one approaching the dreaded 50 mark, I can tell you that while neither 20 nor 50 is exactly optimal (I'd say 25, 30 at the latest to get started), but if forced to choose, 20 is much preferred. My wife, who shall hit 50 very, very soon (sooner than I) hasn't hit menopause yet. The prospect of further enlarging our brood at this point is a terrifying thing indeed. Also, IIRC (don't have time to look it up), the risk of downs is mostly related to the father's, not the mother's, age at conception.

Those little rug rats hardly ever run out of energy, and I for one, am swiftly running out of energy and patience.

[Pastaneta]

I might ask, why do you need the State to have and raise children, whom we're genetically conditioned to adore and coddle?

Well it used to be death of one parent... Today it's more divorce.

Did you ever ask yourself why for instance in European fairy tales, the bad one is either the stepmother (Snow White etc.) or the paternal uncle (Richard III) etc.

The answer is inheritance. In a society where a lot of people die early and the spouse remarry, then there will be a lot of conflicts around the transmission of wealth and assets, especially where a minor is involved. It's noteworthy that in African tales the bad one is the co-wife as inheritance goes in different patterns in most sub-Saharan Africa societies.

While today parents do not die, they do have divorce and remarying and again conflicts around the transmission of assets and wealth.

In such cases, the State has an interest in speaking for the minor children.

[Michael]

[1242b][1] διὸ ἐν οἰκίᾳ πρῶτον ἀρχαὶ καὶ πηγαὶ φιλίας καὶ πολιτείας καὶ δικαίου.

Hence in the household are first found the origins and springs of friendship, of political organization and of justice.

Aristotle Eudemian Ethics Book 7

[CognitiveDistoibance]

Fair enough. To the trashcan with it, I say.

...

I partly sympathize with this sentiment. But on further reflection, a couple brief observations.

In one sense, it is a bit marvelous to behold three rather different folk (Pasta, Michael & moi--I will assume you and the readers understand at least some of the magnitude of our differences) argue largely the same position in our own ways. You may be quick to attribute this to an infectious, mentally debilitating, judeo-christian, monotheistic virus. (Which I heartily commend to you, BTW. )

But consider this alternate possibility. We're all old--at least compared to your demographic. At a minimum Pasta & I (sorry, at my advanced age I forget if Michael has revealed details of his domestic situation) have been married over 25 years (not to each other--mind you--I think that should inspire an Amen! from Pasta) and have raised kidlets. I think I speak for all that with respect to our own marriages, we don't give a southern exposure of a northbound rat with respect to state sanction of them. We do, however, deeply care about the domestic conditions of future generations, including but not limited to, our grandchildren (or grand-kidlets to be, thankfully, in at least my case).

I say all this to ask you to consider deferring your judgment above a bit. Again, I understand your position. But a pillar (albeit tattered and beaten) of society should not be hastily discarded IMHO. Please put a few more miles on your odometer before seriously considering such a drastic solution.

I do wish that ti might drop in on this discussion on this point. For while he lacks that viral infection, he yet shares many of our other demographic characteristics.

[Michael]

CD

I have not reveaed my domestic situation, but, in the interests of candour, perhaps I should say that I am same-sex attracted and so, as a practising Catholic, a life-long celibate bachelor (now 65).

That's why I confine my remarks to the legal and ethical aspects of these questions. Otherwise, it would be a bit like someone with a tin ear discussing music, or someone colour-blind discussing the Impressionists (Far worse disabilities, in my opinion). It is precisely because I think there is a real question of the common good involved here, that I discuss them at all.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

.
What's wrong with weddings

which is subtitled:

The modern wedding is a celebration of the ego, which is the biggest enemy of the subsequent marriage

Bravo! Bravo!

The rest of the rant ain't so bad, neither.

[Simple Minded]

.
What's wrong with weddings

which is subtitled:

The modern wedding is a celebration of the ego, which is the biggest enemy of the subsequent marriage

Bravo! Bravo!

The rest of the rant ain't so bad, neither.

CD,

I'm assuming you printed this, and gave it to your daughter...... along with an unsigned, undated check in the amount of $84.00.

If she is as sharp as you, she will get the point!!!

Funerals are much more honest celebration of life than weddings, and usually once the
"Hey remember when we did........., boy, were'nt we a bunch of fools!!!"
"Oh yeah, and I remember when ......that didn't work out so well" "
stories start to be told, funerals are also more fun. and a more accurate account of the human experience!