"Perhaps we need a new American Revolution to defend marriage"

[Heterodoxical]

Ideologically driven in a conservative, Christian manner. More empire building. More traditional values conserving (although I guess Reagan was more Libertarian than Christian).

***And more conducive to the revolution Reilly has in mind.

I'm not going to speak for Reilly's thoughts, if indeed they are such a thing. Putin isn't Christian in his approach. He uses the church, the same way the early russians empire did. They killed off, literally millions of christians who were not russian orthodox, then that church became a state run religion, well heavily influenced, and used when needed tool.

Putin may use the church to pose behind. So in that sense, no they aren't alike.

But they are both ideological giants, I'll give you that.

 

[GFR7]

I'm not going to speak for Reilly's thoughts, if indeed they are such a thing. Putin isn't Christian in his approach. He uses the church, the same way the early russians empire did. They killed off, literally millions of christians who were not russian orthodox, then that church became a state run religion, well heavily influenced, and used when needed tool.

Putin may use the church to pose behind. So in that sense, no they aren't alike.

But they are both ideological giants, I'll give you that.

Historically, many leaders used the Church to pose behind. Yes, Putin is more like Reagan than like Obama.

 

[Heterodoxical]

Reilly says:

(Making Gay Okay; Ignatius Press, 2014)

(Chap 9 Sodomy and Education )

"If homosexual acts are moral as so many insist, then they should be normative. If they are normative, they should be taught in our schools as a standard. If they are a standard, they should be enforced. . . "

He then goes on to list public schools and Universities who are doing so on tax payer dollars.

Thoughts on this?

Addendum: Also, Reilly asks us to accept Aristotlean teleology: The fact that all things have a nature and a telos, or purpose. Do you think he is correct in doing so?

mor·al[ máwrəl ]
involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave
derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done
according to common standard of justice: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just

The issue depends on who defines moral. Who holds the ultimate standard to determine what is moral?

Can't be the Christians, they can't even agree on doctrine, much less rules for other people, which the Bible says you aren't to apply Church rules to outside people anyway.... So, uhhh.....

Moral is a word like heretic, and orthodox, which mean absolutely nothing except, "I got to label you first so you are wrong not me!"

 

[GFR7]

mor·al[ máwrəl ]
involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave
derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done
according to common standard of justice: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just

The issue depends on who defines moral. Who holds the ultimate standard to determine what is moral?

Can't be the Christians, they can't even agree on doctrine, much less rules for other people, which the Bible says you aren't to apply Church rules to outside people anyway.... So, uhhh.....

Moral is a word like heretic, and orthodox, which mean absolutely nothing except, "I got to label you first so you are wrong not me!"

You are correct.
How can we demand people adhere to Judeo-Christian values when :

• There is no agreement within the denominations of churches;
• many people are not believing Christians;
• some of our Founding Fathers were Deists and not Christian;
• we have separation of Church and State
• Our Constitution never once mentions Jesus Christ or the Bible
• The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"

:think:

On the other hand, prior to the cultural/sexual revolution of the 1960s, our society did pretty much adhere to Christian or Natural Law theory/Aristotlean values, as Reilly says.

 

[TracerBullet]

You are correct.
How can we demand people adhere to Judeo-Christian values when :

• There is no agreement within the denominations of churches;
• many people are not believing Christians;
• some of our Founding Fathers were Deists and not Christian;
• we have separation of Church and State
• Our Constitution never once mentions Jesus Christ or the Bible
• The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"

:think:

On the other hand, prior to the cultural/sexual revolution of the 1960s, our society did pretty much adhere to Christian or Natural Law theory/Aristotlean values, as Reilly says.

the good old days of segregation, discrimination, the imprisonment of gays, the marginalizing of Jews, the objectification of women...ah memories

 

[GFR7]

the good old days of segregation, discrimination, the imprisonment of gays, the marginalizing of Jews, the objectification of women...ah memories

I agree we should not go back to those days.

 

[quip]

I agree we should not go back to those days.

So, what platform should this so-called revolution stand upon?

 

[GFR7]

So, what platform should this so-called revolution stand upon?

I don't know if there can be one.

If there may be: To my thinking, the program would have to inherit and surpass the historical past.

Evil and error can be rooted out (and LGBTQ is more or less symptom, consequence, incident of other developments) but progress and evolution itself can never be simply turned back: Because this was the state of affairs we had before the push to progress made its's appearance. There would need to be a synthesis because the past cannot be returned to.

I am not sure Aristotlean Natural Law theory is something that can be pushed politically or socially, as Reilly would like it.

What are your own thoughts on the defense of marriage? Or do you think it needs no defense?

 

[GFR7]

The following website has a number of very good philosophical debates about marriage: This one is on the Aristotlean theory Reilly speaks of:

http://discussingmarriage.org/natural-law-vs-legal-positivism/#.U8hwePncTIU

 

[GFR7]

Again: It goes back to what Reilly presupposes:

"If homosexual acts are moral as so many insist, then they should be normative. If they are normative, they should be taught in our schools as a standard. If they are a standard, they should be enforced. . . "

 

[quip]

I don't know if there can be one.

If there may be: To my thinking, the program would have to inherit and surpass the historical past.

Evil and error can be rooted out (and LGBTQ is more or less symptom, consequence, incident of other developments) but progress and evolution itself can never be simply turned back: Because this was the state of affairs we had before the push to progress made its's appearance. There would need to be a synthesis because the past cannot be returned to.

I am not sure Aristotlean Natural Law theory is something that can be pushed politically or socially, as Reilly would like it.

What are your own thoughts on the defense of marriage? Or do you think it needs no defense?

No defense necessary...quite the opposite actually. To my view, re-defining marriage to be inclusive (as opposed to maintaining exclusivity) would nicely complement "the program would have to inherit and surpass the historical past." line of thinking. Though, after which you simply regressed the notion by thousands of years...so, I don't believe we're drawing upon the same line-of-thinking here.

 

[GFR7]

No defense necessary...quite the opposite actually. To my view, re-defining marriage to be inclusive (as opposed to maintaining exclusivity) would nicely complement "the program would have to inherit and surpass the historical past." line of thinking. Though, after which you simply regressed the notion by thousands of years...so, I don't believe we're drawing upon the same line-of-thinking here.

Well, I have conflicts about it, and I'm not ashamed to admit it (notwithstanding a certain poster harassing me and calling me a nut-case for having compassion for gay people and their rights).

There are evil aspects to postmodernism, and I would like to see these gone. but NO: It's not going to be put on one scapegoat-group of people. There is such a thing as preserving what is valuable while sweeping away what must not be allowed to continue. Right-wing reactionaries do not have the last word on truth or history.

Moreover: There cannot be regression by thousands of years. It's not possible: Because that is what happened in the world before we reached this point. We would only reach this point once more.

We may be drawing from the same line of thinking.

By the way: Thank you for being sincere and gentle and quiet in your rejoinder. This is truly Christian, unlike some who bully and name-call if you don't toe their party line. This is the enemy of philosophical discourse and the antithesis of the Socratic method.
I would far rather re-think everything than to ever be in the company of such persons and their "God".

 

[GFR7]

And some of these agents of fascism have already made people who fought long and hard against gay marriage change their minds, and view the reactionaries as frightening nepotists and agents of regression.

FWIW:
Here is one man who "turned dirt" on the traditionalists:

David Blankenhorn, a traditional-marriage advocate and star witness in the Proposition 8 trial in California in 2010, shocked his allies with an Op-Ed article in The New York Times last June announcing that he was quitting the fight against same-sex marriage. “Instead of fighting gay marriage,” Mr. Blankenhorn wrote, “I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/u...es-a-pro-marriage-coalition-for-all.html?_r=0

 

[genuineoriginal]

If humans perform it as a consentual act of intimacy..than it is clearly natural.

There is nothing natural about unnatural acts.

 

[GFR7]

There is nothing natural about unnatural acts.

Aristotlean natural law theory will assert this; some parts of the Bible will assert this. Can you have a free civil state run on natural law theory (we did in the past, but the past brought us here, now)? And how would this be returned to, and enforced? Without an answer to these questions, we are just whistling in the wind.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't know how many times I have to point out the homosexuality happens all over in nature. Something that happens in nature cannot be unnatural. It's an oxymoron.

You think it is perfectly natural for human women to bite the heads off of human men after sex because you have seen preying mantises do the same?

I believe there are some holes in your theory.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Without an answer to these questions, we are just whistling in the wind.

John the baptist was just whistling in the wind.

Mark 6:18 18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.​

We should all do the same.

 

[quip]

There is nothing natural about unnatural acts.

Don't beg....it's embarassing.

 

[GFR7]

John the baptist was just whistling in the wind.

Mark 6:18 18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.​

We should all do the same.

Some can or will be like John the Baptist.

How do you act like him, in your own life?

 

[GFR7]

@genuineoriginal:

How may we have a social revolution based on the actions and beliefs of a John the Baptist?

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[a]
4 John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 3

Do you know Christians who have John's perspective toward the leaders of our own era?