This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
"It’s a no-brainer that [same-sex couples] should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there, [which is to] to expose and denaturalize the historical construction of gender at the heart of marriage." (my emphasis)(Homosexual Agenda Activist Masha Gessen)
Ah that's where that quote came from :)If some people want to fight for the right to have a 3+-people "marriage", or whatever they would call that kind of union, let them define what it means, where/when it should be applied, how taxes should be dealt with, how children custody would work, how estate would be distributed, who would have priority over the other when 1 spouse is allowed, to get a visa for example... etc... etc...It would not change anything for 2-people union, but it would be hard to convince lawmakers to accept their ideas since the back-and-forth between lawyers would take forever. It will take them 10+ years before they can define something that actually makes sense under the law. This is completely different from the traditional definition of marriage, which specified 1-man 1-woman and simply needed to change to 2-people. There was really nothing else to update and it took hours and hours of debates. Can you imagine how tough it would be for the few eccentric who want a 3-people marriage? Let them try... why not?
It would not change anything for 2-people union,So, a question for the Christians around.If, in a few years, Hugo's wife comes to him and announces she'd like to have children - just, with another man, who she'd also like to be part of 'their' marriage, would it be a sin to have a laugh about it?Let them try... why not?Indeed, why not? As Hugo already said in another thread - marriage means pretty well nothing to him. It's all a gesture he sees no point in. Indeed, if someone should want to seduce his wife, the knowledge that she's married shouldn't so much as give them pause. Let them make their case to his wife freely; she can decide for herself what value her vows are, and she needs no input from her husband. She is, after all, free to decide - even after the fact - just what their marriage is and means. Input from others is not just welcome, it is to be expected for the forward-thinking.So let her coworkers try. Why not?
Crude said: "As Hugo already said in another thread - marriage means pretty well nothing to him."Before I comment on anything else, I'll give you a chance to revise that comment based on this clarification: My marriage, or whatever you want to call our union/commitment to each other, is extremely important to me. It is probably the most important thing in my life actually. I find it hard to find anything more important; anything else, such as my family, best friends or career, is at most as important, and that's a stretch. So do you think your comment here is relevant?
I think there's actually a split in the pro-LGBT community on the issue of marriage. There is a conservative wing of it that basically says that traditional marriage is just fine, it just needs to be extended to same-sex couples. This is typical of Christian supporters of SSM such as Matthew Vines. They believe in such things as lifetime commitment, two and only two partners, marital fidelity, etc., they just think that for people who are gay in their orientation, they should exercise that with a partner of the same sex. Such people would be embarrassed, I think by Richard Carrier's adaptation of LGBT rhetoric to support polyamory. People like Gessen are on the radical wing of the pro-LGBT movement, they are happy to see the opposite sex requirement eliminated for marriage, but they reject the rest of traditional marriage as well. The difference between these two wings has been de-emphasized during the battle for SSM. After Obergfell, I strongly suspect that this disagreement develop more and more into a debate within the pro-LGBT community.
So do you think your comment here is relevant?Yes, I do. What you value is your 'union/commitment'. It is not a marriage. The fact that you want it to be called a marriage (and then, conditionally, primarily in America - because you have a culture war to fight here) does not make it one, nor does it alter what I said. You've said as much without prompting from me.So, once again.Indeed, if someone should want to seduce his wife, the knowledge that she's married shouldn't so much as give them pause. Let them make their case to his wife freely; she can decide for herself what value her vows are, and she needs no input from her husband. She is, after all, free to decide - even after the fact - just what their marriage is and means. Input from others is not just welcome, it is to be expected for the forward-thinking.So let her coworkers try. Why not?By all means - deny the above. I look forward to you alternately arguing that others should be expected to recognize the import of the meaning you impart to your relationship and not even attempt to persuade anyone otherwise (in which case, we have an interesting bit of hypocrisy in play), or to just roll over and agree that the hypothetical is entirely acceptable, which allows us to see just how important commitments are in one's life.
Oh I am not trying to deny anything. I'm just trying to understand what your point is, besides cheap personnal attacks. Of course my wife can make her own choice, just like ANY woman can. No? Because she is not single, it's less likely she'll want to be seduced, but sure, if anyone wants to try... But your point is that my marriage is meaningless, so does that prove your point? If yes, great, I would rather not have a real marriage than a submissive wife, or one I cannot trust.But remember: legally, it's still marriage.
VR: "I think there's actually a split in the pro-LGBT community on the issue of marriage. There is a conservative wing of it that basically says that traditional marriage is just fine, it just needs to be extended to same-sex couples ..."Why don't you "liberals" ever get it? This "split" doesn't matter, because it is the leftists (i.e. your puppetmasters) -- who have *always* desired to destroy marriage, as a prelude to destroying Western civilization -- who are driving all these culture wars.
Oh oh, we have been exposed! Now we have to get rid of Ilíon first, he knows too much...
Hugo,No humor necessary. Ilion's elimination would probably be high on the agenda, once an atheist regime had been established in this country. Any voice of reason in opposition to the party line would simply not be tolerated. (And by "tolerated", I mean allowed to continue living.)
How could there be any voice of reason in opposition to the party line when the atheist regime would be the voice of reason?
And as a Christian I also see no logical reason to make illegal something The Bible allowed even in the Old Testament.
"And as a Christian I also see no logical reason to make illegal something The Bible allowed even in the Old Testament."What sort of Christian is it who doesn't know that Christ himself said that the Father's plan for marriage from the beginning was for one man and one woman for life, but that due to the hardness of the people's hearts (i.e. their sinfulness), he had allowed them multiple wives ... and that that allowance was ended?
Not only that (what Ilion said), but it's plain to a blind man that polygamy in the Old Testament was never "approved of" - it was shown (through the stories) to be a disaster to everyone involved. There is not one word of approval anywhere in the Old Testament (just try and find one) - just narrative accounts of it happening as a regrettable historical fact.
A Christian who reads the whole Bible and doesn't just pick and choose.http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/search/label/Biblical%20Marriage
Jared,The views expressed on your site (to which you linked in your comment) are problematic at best (e.g., "KJV only"). In particular, your take on scriptural interpretation is extremely dangerous. What you call inerrancy essentially translates to "my interpretation is correct". That is why we have literally thousands of protestants sects today, instead of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as Christ intended. Instead, people like you have set themselves up as their own private Magisterium. That's the real irony of those professing sola scriptura. It's not that they don't believe there is a Magisterium - they just believe that they themselves are it.Reading The Bible as it was meant to be read is not "picking and choosing" - it's just reading it properly (i.e., history as history, parable as parable, poetry as poetry, law as law, and myth (by no means a negative word, by the way) as myth, etc.). "I believe that The Bible is is the Infallible Word of God, and the finale (sic) authority."Again, I have discovered through many, many conversations with people who say that, that what they really mean is "my reading of The Bible is the Infallible Word..." etc.Jezu ufam tobie!
How liberty and equality disappearPay particular attention to this paragraph: "Europe is dying because it has become morally incompetent. It isn’t that Europe stands for nothing. It’s that it stands for shallow things, shallowly. Europeans believe in human rights, tolerance, openness, peace, progress, the environment, pleasure. These beliefs are all very nice, but they are also secondary. What Europeans no longer believe in are the things from which their beliefs spring: Judaism and Christianity; liberalism and the Enlightenment; martial pride and capability; capitalism and wealth. Still less do they believe in fighting or sacrificing or paying or even arguing for these things. Having ignored and undermined their own foundations, they wonder why their house is coming apart." (my emphasis)Also this:"[It] is the marriage of reason and revelation that produced a civilization of technological mastery tempered by human decency."
planks length: "... it's plain to a blind man that polygamy in the Old Testament was never "approved of" - it was shown (through the stories) to be a disaster to everyone involved. There is not one word of approval anywhere in the Old Testament (just try and find one) - just narrative accounts of it happening as a regrettable historical fact."This is true of a number of things that the New Covenant explicitly prohibits where the Old Covenant didn't ... and that the anti-Christians imagine they can therefore throw in our faces.
Post a Comment