Defending Marriage

[Donnadogsoth]

Here is a substantial Google preview of a book by Anthony Esolen defending marriage from the poststructuralist dissipation.  A few quotes caught my eye though the book is eminently quotable:

 

"So the sexual revolution has already wrought a 'culture' in which men and women do not love one another as deeply and as gratefully as they ought to, and this is true despite any particular couple's devotion. I believe that any honest and careful observer must come to this conclusion. Nine hundred years ago in southern France, a tradition of love poetry began, sometimes bawdy and merry, often almost religious in tenor, to sing the praises of the poet's lady love. For all those nine hundred years, that is what men have done. Robert burns sang that his love was like a red, red rose; and the Italian folk artist Ernesto De Curtis begged his beloved to come back to Sorrento; and one William Douglas vowed that for his bonnie Annie Laurie, he'd lay him down and dee; and Stephen Foster, aching for the woman who had left him, sang that he dreamed of Jeannie with the light brown hair.

 

"This tradition is in its death rattle. Why should we have expected otherwise? When men and women are taught, first, to use other people as objects of sexual excitement, not as if they were animals but as if they were toys or robots, do we really expect that they should all at once see the beauty and nobility of the other sex? Call it the punishment of contempt. If you treat with contempt something that in reality claims your honor and your love, the contempt you cast redounds upon your own proper head. You become someone contemptible. So now popular musicians do not sing lyrically about a woman's beauty or a man's courage. Instead they whine or grunt like animals in a sweltering pen. They have almost nothing kind to say to one another."

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=JDwqCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=esolen+marriage&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

"But we must unite the sexes--not just a John and Mary here and there, but men and women generally, for one another. Unless they unite, the culture cannot survive. The women split away to protect their persons and their relatively few children, and grow harried and cynical; the unattached males pass the dull hours in frivolity or destruction."

[AynRand]

I guess I agree with most of this post, however knowing you Donnadogsoth I think you are implying some sort of sexual immorality inherently follows from non traditional methods of marriage, and obviously I am referring to gay marriage. Not that you directly made this assumption, however I would disagree with that. I think gay couples love each other just as much as I believe your ideal form of marriage couples (god fearing christian man and subservient woman) would.

[Donnadogsoth]

The point is not how much Gay couples love each other, here, the point is the sexual revolution itself has badly corroded heterosexuality, including to the point of making heterosexuals more "homosexual" in the sense of the observed homosexual male "cruising" behaviour.  Hookup culture, one-night-stands, friends with benefits, fuckbuddies, and whatever other, increasingly popular permutations that make heterosexuals seem like stereotypical homosexuals is, from the perspective of healthy, heterosexual relationships, sexual horror.

[AynRand]

the point is the sexual revolution itself has badly corroded heterosexuality, including to the point of making heterosexuals more "homosexual" in the sense of the observed homosexual male "cruising" behaviour.  Hookup culture, one-night-stands, friends with benefits, fuckbuddies,

And the implication here is that these things are bad, impede on heterosexual marriage, and these are all started solely by homosexuals? I think that is a pretty big assumption to make.

[Donnadogsoth]

And the implication here is that these things are bad, impede on heterosexual marriage, and these are all started solely by homosexuals? I think that is a pretty big assumption to make.

 

Not started by homosexuals.  The sexual revolution is larger than that.  If we're going to pin blame on any group, I recommend the feminists, who have done more wittingly to divide the sexes than anyone.

[J. D. Stembal]

Marriage is a contract outlining a trade of fertility for resources (land, originally). Perhaps it's not the contract that is corroding but the value of the goods being traded.

[AynRand]

I agree that feminists are the largest cause of division among genders, but my biggest concern is how does actions like hookup culture impede on heterosexual marriage? The only way I can think of is that married men want to try hook up culture, and in which case these married men must have a bad marriage. I think it would then follow that a bad marriage is less preferable to a society with social acceptance towards actions like hookup culture.

[Spaceballs]

Anne Lucken summarizing Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's unfinished book Pornocracy

 

For him, without duality of the sexes , no marriage, no marriage point of families without families, no society , and finally " pure selfishness , civil war and banditry . " For unity, one, the individual does not exist: everything is made of subparts linked by a relationship of interdependence. It thus demonstrates why a society in which only the individual account - which itself is guided by its interests and pleasures - successful, just like a company in which one account group , but in different ways , to same result , namely tyranny. At the apology a wedding without duality of the sexes , logical culmination of liberalism extolling the virtues of the addition of individual selfishness , it is good to read what sounds today like a prophecy :

Community, promiscuity, gender confusion ;

Degradation of the man effeminate ;

Degradation of women who prostitute ;

Dissolution of society falling into tyranny and sodomy.

 

Throughout many videos, I feel like Molyneux is defending marriage but he is anti-marriage.  I'm really confused about his point of view.  Homos always had the right to get married anyway.  From my understanding Homo marriage is the destruction of marriage.

 

example : X+Y=M so obviously X+X =2X /= M and Y+Y =2Y /=M

eye glasses is composed of 2 glasses and 1 frame.  If you have 4 glasses, it cannot be used as eye glasses.  If you have 2 frames it cannot be used as eye glasses.  It can only be called eye glasses if you have 2 glasses and 1 frame.

 

I never understood why this simple logic is so difficult to understand.

 

[AynRand]

From my understanding Homo marriage is the destruction of marriage.

What a huge claim to make. Spaceballs your entire post astounds me. You realize your "math" equation provides no evidence that gay marriage is destroying marriage, and you could use that eye glass example to justify literally any form of discrimination. But again it provides no evidence that gay marriage is destroying marriage.

 

Did you really not know that gay people have not always had the right to marry, and in fact not more than 15 years ago no gay marriage was recognized by the US government. Did you know that the catholic church still does not recognize gay marriage, as does nearly every denomination of Christianity several exceptions.

 

 

I never understood why this simple logic is so difficult to understand.

I hope you have understood that you have not provided any logic.

[Donnadogsoth]

I agree that feminists are the largest cause of division among genders, but my biggest concern is how does actions like hookup culture impede on heterosexual marriage? The only way I can think of is that married men want to try hook up culture, and in which case these married men must have a bad marriage. I think it would then follow that a bad marriage is less preferable to a society with social acceptance towards actions like hookup culture.

 

Hookup culture seduces youth as well as adults, getting them into the habit of loveless genital union.  This pseudoculture influences the whole society, weaking the meaning, and therefore the value, of marriage in the eyes of the many.  Before the sexual revolution there was a marriage culture that supported the idea of marriage, and while that wasn't perfected, it existed to increase the prestige of marriage and celebrated its fruits.  Now we have a culture of death, including a suicidal birthrate in the West, as more and more young people either marry later, or don't marry at all, with fewer than ever opting to reproduce, which is seen as a "drag".

[Spaceballs]

What a huge claim to make. Spaceballs your entire post astounds me. You realize your "math" equation provides no evidence that gay marriage is destroying marriage, and you could use that eye glass example to justify literally any form of discrimination. But again it provides no evidence that gay marriage is destroying marriage.

 

Did you really not know that gay people have not always had the right to marry, and in fact not more than 15 years ago no gay marriage was recognized by the US government. Did you know that the catholic church still does not recognize gay marriage, as does nearly every denomination of Christianity several exceptions.

 

 

I hope you have understood that you have not provided any logic.

Before, X+Y=M (reference to XX & XY, and M for marriage by definition) and  : X+X=simply 2X and Y+Y = 2Y

now that X+Y=M and X+X=M and Y+Y=M then it simply means X=Y and therefor simply a synonym confirming the Gender Theory. No duality.

 

another analogy a Car is composed of the Frame, Engine and 4 Tires (Car = Frame+Engine+4Tires).

Homo logic would be: 3 Frames = 3 Engines = 12 Tires = Frame+Engine+4Tires = 1 Car ?

I've never seen someone drive a car composed of 3 engines with no frame and no tires.

 

If we still want to delete the duality of man and woman, we should simply invent a new word or simply use words that have already been invented like : concubinage, inverted-couple, inverted-sex, double, twice, etc

I wrote the same example but which part is not clear illogical or something ?Am I still ambiguous & illogical because I think I'm pretty much on the same page as Proudhon ?

[Archimedes]

Hookup culture seduces youth as well as adults, getting them into the habit of loveless genital union.  This pseudoculture influences the whole society, weaking the meaning, and therefore the value, of marriage in the eyes of the many.  Before the sexual revolution there was a marriage culture that supported the idea of marriage, and while that wasn't perfected, it existed to increase the prestige of marriage and celebrated its fruits.  Now we have a culture of death, including a suicidal birthrate in the West, as more and more young people either marry later, or don't marry at all, with fewer than ever opting to reproduce, which is seen as a "drag".

 

I don't think hookup culture causes the destruction of society. I think it's the other way. A destructive society causes young people to behave in a destructive manner. Young people choose to opt out of monogamy and raising a family, simply because they have not enough economic security to start a family.

[AynRand]

Before, X+Y=M (reference to XX & XY, and M for marriage by definition) and  : X+X=simply 2X and Y+Y = 2Y

now that X+Y=M and X+X=M and Y+Y=M then it simply means X=Y and therefor simply a synonym confirming the Gender Theory. No duality.

Simply restating what you said earlier is not an argument. I believe you are under the impression that substituting words with abstract variables makes what you say true, so I'll try this in your language.

 

X+Y=M so obviously X+X =2X = M and Y+Y =2Y =M

Would you be persuaded by this? Do you understand that this is not an argument. I've kept the structure of your quote unquote "logic" yet you still disagree with this. I'll put it another way. 3+3 =6 but magically 2+4=6 and so does 12-6=6. Three ways to get the same outcome yet all made up of different components. Therefore gay marriage is the same as straight marriage. This is obviously not an argument, and I think anybody should clearly be able to understand that.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't think hookup culture causes the destruction of society. I think it's the other way. A destructive society causes young people to behave in a destructive manner. Young people choose to opt out of monogamy and raising a family, simply because they have not enough economic security to start a family.

 

Injury can admit infection, if you see what I mean.  The injured (destructive) society causes young people to fall prey to infection (destructive behaviour) which in turn can further injure society.  Call it the theory of complications.