iwpoe wrote:

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.

Iwpoe, of course the State has to destroy itself to destroy Christianity. Grace builds on nature and (as I already said) nature must be destroyed for Christianity to be destroyed.

Man wants absolute mastery and power over himself and his destiny. This is, of course, impossible.

And yes, the State in any meaningful sense is synonymous with Christianity today. Anti-Christians naturally tend to anarchism and this is no accident. There are, of course, exceptions, but frankly you'd have to be stupid to see China or Israel or Saudi Arabia as meaningful "States" to live in.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/13/2016 6:51 am)

Timocrates wrote:

Furthermore, a child being raised by both sexes is meaningless. I virtually raised my baby sister single-handedly, she benefited 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.

What is it then about the blood tie which takes a child/rearer relationship from being meaningless or of very little meaning to be of such vital import? Or is it that a child looks at the adult party as their parent?

Timocrates wrote:

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.

What on Earth do you mean? In a large family setting they would be exposed to persons of both sexes to whom they had no blood tie e.g. servants, relatives' spouses and so forth. What is it innately about 'foreign' men which leads to this prohibition? (obviously if said men behave abusively or immorally then it would be wrong to expose a child to them but the case here is the same even if they weren't 'foreign'.)

Timocrates wrote:

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.

The notion of legal parentage exists apart from debates about gay marriage though. Practically there is a great risk of abuse, for instance in divorce cases (where Leftist gender preference comes in again), but this stems from the corrupt nature of government rather than anything in principle wrong with the system, which is in place to a large extent to protect children from abusive parents.

DanielCC wrote:

The notion of legal parentage exists apart from debates about gay marriage though.

This is false. Because of so-called gay marriage there is no legal concept anymore but legal parentage because obviously gay couples can't be natural parents of any offspring (and no, let's not be silly, the only way they could genetically manipulate an embryo to being theirs is, of course, artificially).

Timocrates wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

Furthermore, a child being raised by both sexes is meaningless. I virtually raised my baby sister single-handedly, she benefited 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.

What is it then about the blood tie which takes a child/rearer relationship from being meaningless or of very little meaning to be of such vital import? Or is it that a child looks at the adult party as their parent?

Timocrates wrote:

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.

What on Earth do you mean? In a large family setting they would be exposed to persons of both sexes to whom they had no blood tie e.g. servants, relatives' spouses and so forth. What is it innately about 'foreign' men which leads to this prohibition? (obviously if said men behave abusively or immorally then it would be wrong to expose a child to them but the case here is the same even if they weren't 'foreign'.)

Timocrates wrote:

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.

The notion of legal parentage exists apart from debates about gay marriage though. Practically there is a great risk of abuse, for instance in divorce cases (where Leftist gender preference comes in again), but this stems from the corrupt nature of government rather than anything in principle wrong with the system, which is in place to a large extent to protect children from abusive parents.

Daniel, to start, I said strange men and then you alluded to relatives.

Which in the case of relatives does not preclude them from being practical strangers to the child despite their having some official tie. Now I repeat my original question.

DanielCC wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

The notion of legal parentage exists apart from debates about gay marriage though.

This is false. Because of so-called gay marriage there is no legal concept anymore but legal parentage because obviously gay couples can't be natural parents of any offspring (and no, let's not be silly, the only way they could genetically manipulate an embryo to being theirs is, of course, artificially).

The concept of legal parentage still existed before gay marriage

Yes, Daniel, but for the sake of extreme cases of child neglect or abuse or in an adoption. The state designates a legal parent; normally/naturally, that is also your natural birth parents; however, there is an immense difference. The state is rightly stricter on a purely legal parent than a birth parent (under the old law, the state had to acknowledge your mother and father as your 'birth' parents and, by necessity, also your legal parents). But they were two radically different things. The big difference is this: under the old law the State had to acknowledge your natural parentage; under the new law, they bestow it.