GOP to twentysomethings: No sex for you

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it really all that bad? I don't understand why conservatives defend nuclear families so much. Monogamy is pretty unnatural, we're about the only mammalian species that does it. There's no evidence that children raised in atypical, planned families (by same-sex couples or polyamorous families) are at any significant disadvantage scholastically, socially or economically.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I really do think its that bad. The amount of studies that show the benefits of marriage are overwhelming. The more this institution deteriorates, the worse off we all are.

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part, marriage is a social institution that used to have a valuable economic function, but in the post-industrial world is an anachronism. (For example, in colonial America, no one had the luxury of fast food/TV dinners or pre-stitched clothing; men had to toil to earn not goods, but the elements of goods (raw foods, tools and cloth) which the women then had to spend the day converting into consumables (dinner, clothing, etc). It was a necessary division of labor that doesn't exist anymore, since the industrial revolution rendered the woman's role in the home completely meaningless. Accordingly we've seen a progressive degradation of traditional gender roles since the industrial revolution to the point now where they don't really exist anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here is where you and I part ways completely. I think its demonstrable (and I sort of talk about it above) that marriage and the traditional family has an intrinisc value in and of itself. The instrumental economic benefits you spoke of are really just another net good but arent the primary benefit of marriage. Your statement that the "womans place in the home has been rendered meaningless" is quite telling. Nothing could be further from the truth, IMO. But you are right, it is emblematic of the turn that society has taken and I think its a turn for the worse.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah I really do think its that bad. The amount of studies that show the benefits of marriage are overwhelming

[/ QUOTE ]

Benefits for whom? If for the spouses themselves, it would seem that there is an incentive for them to get and stay married.

[ QUOTE ]
The instrumental economic benefits you spoke of are really just another net good but arent the primary benefit of marriage. Your statement that the "womans place in the home has been rendered meaningless" is quite telling. Nothing could be further from the truth, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that one of the ends of marriage no longer exists. I can't say whether it was the primary goal (it certainly isn't today). It probably had more weight two hundred years ago, but I don't feel like researching it.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Benefits for whom? If for the spouses themselves, it would seem that there is an incentive for them to get and stay married.


[/ QUOTE ]

Them first, which results in positive effects on society.

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that one of the ends of marriage no longer exists. I can't say whether it was the primary goal (it certainly isn't today). It probably had more weight two hundred years ago, but I don't feel like researching it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you were saying. My point is that those instrumental goods to marriage (division of labor, et al) were a secondary benefit of marriage. I'm sure that to those people, it probably seemed like a pretty important reason and rightly so given their circumstances. It doesnt refute the intrinsic good of marriage which I think is so important.

This is starting to sound very SMPish. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Benefits for whom? If for the spouses themselves, it would seem that there is an incentive for them to get and stay married.


[/ QUOTE ]

Them first, which results in positive effects on society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if it benefits the spouses first, why is the incentive diminishing? If you're arguing that it's not a terribly positive thing for the spouses but yields big positive externalities, then I understand.

[ QUOTE ]
This is starting to sound very SMPish. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

All the best politics threads do [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it's merely a coincidence that drug usage and tobacco usage declines have coincided with the intiation of government efforts to curb their use, then I'm curious as to what the underlying reasons might be. Perhaps they were random events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just my opinion... as someone who is a smoker and has had some experience with pot-heads.

The government propaganda has had little effect. Government programs HAVE reduced smoking. But they are (1) the many laws banning smoking in bars/restaurants/public beaches/etc. (2) Constantly adding additional taxes. When I started smoking about 15 years ago, you could buy a pack of cigarettes in some places for under $2. In NYC they now cost around $7+ (depending on where you purchase them).

Regarding drug use-- I don't think many people take any of the anti-drug propaganda seriously. The biggest setup I've heard (again, just from my peers and personal experience) is that there are times that its just 'dry.' It seems to me for many generations despite the consistant 'war on drugs' campaign... a relatively consistant number of people try it, some stay with it, some don't. I don't think the ads are making much of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Regarding tobacco usage, I think that educating the public has helped decrease usage a great deal. I agree that the other factors you mention play a major role. I think your use of the word "propaganda" regarding tobacco usage is a poor one. It's clear that tobacco usage does pose significant health risks and is the cause of lung cancer. I think the government is making an honest effort in warning about the dangers of tobacco usage.

Points well take about drug usage. I'm fairly certain that teenage drug usage is down quite a bit and I do know that educational programs warning about the danger of using drugs is targeted at teenagers. Obviously, one of the major differences between government directed campaigns against tobacco usage and drug usage is that drug usage is generally speaking handled as a criminal activity. How much this deters the usage of drugs is hard to say.

Another thing that is implied in many posts IMO is that using pot is a lot different than using other drugs like cocaine, meth, herion, etc. I agree with this notion and I'm fairly certain that the bogus way that the government seems to equate pot usage to the usage of drugs like cocaine and meth erodes support for government efforts to curb drug usage. I don't use pot FWIW and neither does my wife. I've stated this before on this forum. My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer about 8 years ago. Smoking pot basically got her through chemo as it was intolerable for her without it. I thought it was ridiculous that I had to become a criminal by finding pot for her to get her through the ordeal. I don't know if you can imagine what it was like for a relatively straight laced middle age man to go looking for pot on the streets but believe me it was not a pleasant experience.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your use of the word "propaganda" regarding tobacco usage is a poor one.

[/ QUOTE ] I think you're taking it wrong. Propaganda is often thought of as having to be dishonest or wrong when it really is just the spreading of information to change ideas/instuations/etc. In other words, propaganda can be entirely accurate.

In the case of Tobacco, I agree with the propaganda. I'm just not certain how effective it is.

I do think there is an inherent mistrust of such govt. propaganda. I think the anti-pot propaganda is filled with misinformation and has been for quite a long time.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, one of the major differences between government directed campaigns against tobacco usage and drug usage is that drug usage is generally speaking handled as a criminal activity. How much this deters the usage of drugs is hard to say.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that it is hard to measure. Most drugs have been illegal for quite a few decades but I believe there's been a pretty consistant and large body of users.

I think the governments problem with anti-drug (and I'm referring to pot since that's what most of them seem to address) have little credibility because of the way they've addressed it. Most people who have tried pot or seen casual users realize that its not really much different then someone being drunk. If you watch early anti-drug movies (Reefer Madness) you can see that they portrayed people smoking a joint and becoming homicidal maniacs. I think its hard for this to be effective when people see how different reality is from what is portrayed. Smoking, on the other hand, I think people 'get' and believe that Lung Cancer is a real danger.

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing that is implied in many posts IMO is that using pot is a lot different than using other drugs like cocaine, meth, herion, etc. I agree with this notion and I'm fairly certain that the bogus way that the government seems to equate pot usage to the usage of drugs like cocaine and meth erodes support for government efforts to curb drug usage.

[/ QUOTE ] Yep. We're saying the same thing here. The govt's approach loses a lot of credibility.

[ QUOTE ]
thought it was ridiculous that I had to become a criminal by finding pot for her to get her through the ordeal. I don't know if you can imagine what it was like for a relatively straight laced middle age man to go looking for pot on the streets but believe me it was not a pleasant experience.

[/ QUOTE ] As I get older I've used it less. And as I've gotten older I've become more clueless about how to find it so I don't bother. Though my wife and I recently went to Amsterdam. There attitude towards pot was refreshing.

It was very amusing to sit at a coffeeshop and see what appeared to be a middle aged man and his father come in, order coffee and a joint and have a relaxing good time.