Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum » Gay Marriage 101 and the Hegelian Dialectic

iwpoe · 3/13/2016 5:49 am

Timocrates wrote:
"As opposed to"? Those people had every right to own their business and operate it according to their faith, iwpoe.

We are in not in fundamental disagreement on this matter, but to lose your business is not to join the ranks of St. Peter.

Timocrates wrote:
You might entertain the idea that a livelihood being destroyed in your own country is something cheap. But if you do, then I pity you.

Hardly. I run a business myself, but I'm not going to claim martyrdom if I refuse to rent to predatory homosexual men and find myself all over twitter for awhile. Persecution, perhaps, but I'm not a martyr.

But the point was not that one is never justified in risking persecution, but rather merely the idea that truth can be simply destroyed seems uninteligible and impious. God if he's God can be forgotten, not killed, and if he's a living presence in the world he can never fail to operate, even if totally forgotten.

DanielCC · 3/13/2016 5:50 am

Timocrates wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is dogmatic and a part of patriarchal culture.

In which case why on earth should we accept it? What interest has one in defending 'patriarchal culture'? If anything the further slapping down of biological identity politics is needed (and I will add that it's Leftism's fault for reintroducing them - being black or a woman will make no difference in the sight of God).

The way you argue it here makes it sound as if the immorality of gay marriage is something one knows only from revelation.

Timocrates wrote:
There is no reconciliation unless the State abandons marriage overall. The State abandons the legal concept of marriage. Christianity rests in part on marriage. Christianity is thus far destroyed.

I have heard some Christians argue the opposite i.e. that there should be a firm-line between State-acknowledged partnership and holy matrimony, thus placing the latter firmly beyond State reach.

Timocrates · 3/13/2016 5:54 am

iwpoe wrote:
Timocrates wrote:
As a historian I can confidentially tell you that only in Christianity was there ever the idea that a child has the right to be raised by their natural father and mother. Or do you want to get into children's rights in non-Christian cultures? Or the idea of marriage?
This is a much more specific claim than your prior "Children deserve to know and be raised by their mother and father. Christianity is the only culture that exists that affirms this." But, I mean, just off the top of my head, Confucian culture was hardly hostile to mother and father with children. Even in Greek and Roman culture (though in the former love between spouses, as far as I can tell, seems considered nearly utterly optional), despite homosexual tolerance to a degree seemed to consider marriage and family a civic duty.

It's not more specific. Children had no right then to anything, iwpoe. I believe you know your classic culture, and I think you know why once the richest man in Rome (and a Senator) was technically also the poorest.

And to be sure, children nowadays are just trophies to adults. Symbols (poor things) to the "conquest" of Christianity, Christian law and Christian culture. But because of us they live. Funny how that works, eh? Even in our apparent cultural defeats, life must be.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/13/2016 5:55 am)

Timocrates · 3/13/2016 5:56 am

DanielCC wrote:
Timocrates wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is dogmatic and a part of patriarchal culture.
In which case why on earth should we accept it? What interest has one in defending 'patriarchal culture'? If anything the further slapping down of biological identity politics is needed (and I will add that it's Leftism's fault for reintroducing them - being black or a woman will make no difference in the sight of God).

The way you argue it here makes it sound as if the immorality of gay marriage is something one knows only from revelation.

Timocrates wrote:
There is no reconciliation unless the State abandons marriage overall. The State abandons the legal concept of marriage. Christianity rests in part on marriage. Christianity is thus far destroyed.
I have heard some Christians argue the opposite i.e. that there should be a firm-line between State-acknowledged partnership and holy matrimony, thus placing the latter firmly beyond State reach.

Do you know your father, Daniel? Do you know your father's brother (i.e., your uncle)?

I have so many cousins on my father's side that give me reason to defend patriarchy.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/13/2016 5:57 am)

Timocrates · 3/13/2016 6:01 am

DanielCC wrote:
I have heard some Christians argue the opposite i.e. that there should be a firm-line between State-acknowledged partnership and holy matrimony, thus placing the latter firmly beyond State reach.

Daniel a marriage is already beyond state reach by nature. Marriage is the cause of nations, which was the only reason (rightly) they cared about them.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/13/2016 6:03 am)

Timocrates · 3/13/2016 6:09 am

iwpoe wrote:
Timocrates wrote:
"As opposed to"? Those people had every right to own their business and operate it according to their faith, iwpoe.
We are in not in fundamental disagreement on this matter, but to lose your business is not to join the ranks of St. Peter.
Timocrates wrote:
You might entertain the idea that a livelihood being destroyed in your own country is something cheap. But if you do, then I pity you.
Hardly. I run a business myself, but I'm not going to claim martyrdom if I refuse to rent to predatory homosexual men and find myself all over twitter for awhile. Persecution, perhaps, but I'm not a martyr.

But the point was not that one is never justified in risking persecution, but rather merely the idea that truth can be simply destroyed seems uninteligible and impious. God if he's God can be forgotten, not killed, and if he's a living presence in the world he can never fail to operate, even if totally forgotten.

It's a sin for secular Americans to do it, iwpoe. According to their own law, which they must live and die by.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/13/2016 6:12 am)

DanielCC · 3/13/2016 6:15 am

Timocrates wrote:
Do you know your father, Daniel? Do you know your father's brother (i.e., your uncle)?

I have so many cousins on my father's side that give me reason to defend patriarchy.

Yes, and I also know many other with whom I have no blood ties who I value to equal degree (and in the case of more distance relatives far more so). To say that one tends to value the persons who have brought one up is no more an argument for patriarchy than it is for matriarchy.

I'll grant that all things being equal it is better for a child to be raised by persons of both sexes, however this is neither the moral fundament of society nor even of the family.

Timocrates wrote:
Daniel a marriage is already beyond state reach by nature. Marriage is the cause of nations, which was the only reason (rightly) they cared about them.

I'd certainly agree that marriage is beyond the State. As for nations only caring about marriage due to its acting as a casual factor in their organization that's a suspicious, self-serving reason (why should that grant us anything about the moral character of marriage?).

iwpoe · 3/13/2016 6:19 am

Timocrates wrote:
It's a sin for secular Americans to do it, iwpoe. According to their own law, which they must live and die by.

I'm Matt, by the way.

In any case, what? Secular Americans mean to kill people who don't support gay marriages? Secular Americans can barely manage to eat beef if you don't slap 40 versions of "organic" on the label at wholefoods. Even all our "hardcore" leftists can manage to do is yell and scream about how you shouldn't make people feel bad.

iwpoe · 3/13/2016 6:23 am

Timocrates wrote:
Daniel a marriage is already beyond state reach by nature. Marriage is the cause of nations, which was the only reason (rightly) they cared about them.

So then, again, it seems to me that this is the state destroying itself- not Christianity. Unless you think Christianity is somehow reducible to the state or its institutional support.

The question would then, be about the defensibility of the state, not of Christianity. I think the modern state, indeed even the ancient state, is ultimately pragmatic and despicable in the face of wisdom. I can support it only for utilitarian reasons.

Timocrates · 3/13/2016 6:26 am

DanielCC wrote:
Timocrates wrote:
Do you know your father, Daniel? Do you know your father's brother (i.e., your uncle)?

I have so many cousins on my father's side that give me reason to defend patriarchy.
Yes, and I also know many other with whom I have no blood ties who I value to equal degree (and in the case of more distance relatives far more so). To say that one tends to value the persons who have brought one up is no more an argument for patriarchy than it is for matriarchy.

I'll grant that all things being equal it is better for a child to be raised by persons of both sexes, however this is neither the moral fundament of society nor even of the family.

Timocrates wrote:
Daniel a marriage is already beyond state reach by nature. Marriage is the cause of nations, which was the only reason (rightly) they cared about them.
I'd certainly agree that marriage is beyond the State. As for nations only caring about marriage due to its acting as a casual factor in their organization that's a suspicious, self-serving reason (why should that grant us anything about the moral character of marriage?).

Daniel, I'd be surprised if you don't know many others who are not your relatives who you value far beyond equal degree to whom you were born related to. That is far beside my point, however.

Furthermore, a child being raised by both sexes is meaningless. I virtually raised my baby sister single-handedly, she benefitted very little from it. No. The fact is a child has the right to be raised by their parents. A child normally and naturally benefits from this. Young boys, e.g., should not be exposed to strange men even if it is their mother who exposes the child to them; neither should young girls.

The point of gay marriage is to create a Hegelian dialectic between the weakest in society and their values. The synthesis is either the formal dissolution of marriage as a legal concept or - what is far worse - parents being relegated to State-bestowed status of 'legal parent' to their children, which means the State can take your children anytime they like and raise them as they like. This is criminal.