Friday, August 6, 2010
On the Prop 8 decision
This an excellent essay by Edward Feser: Some thoughts on the Prop 8 decision
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Backlinks to this blog?
Search This Blog
About Me
- Ilíon
- A thousand years ago, our cultural ancestors prayed, "From the fury of the Northmen, Lord, protect us!" . . . Today, we ought to pray, "From the tender mercies and caring solicitude of the Good Intentioned, Lord, protect us!"
Blog List
Links of Interest
- Alan Keyes
- American Thinker
- Archive -- Adler
- Archive -- Chesterton
- Archive -- David Stove
- Atheism is Dead
- B.Prokop (Celestial Pilgrimage)
- B.Prokop (The Observer's Chair)
- Bastiat -- The Law
- Cartago Delenda Est
- Curmudgeonry
- David Limbaugh
- Diana West
- Egnorance
- Fides et Ratio
- Superversive
- Superversive (Essays)
- The Drew Blog
- The Right Word
- View from the Right
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(217)
-
▼
August
(14)
- An Amusing Photo
- Oikophobia
- A Conversation with David
- Homogamy and civilizational decline
- An Important Constitutional Point
- That Answers That Question -- Gauss and Series Sum...
- On the Prop 8 decision
- Rarely put so bluntly
- Coming soon ...
- Anglo-Saxon
- Can one 'out-fundy' the 'fundies'?
- ObamaNation, the Musical
- Not 'a nation of immigrants'
- William Lane Craig on five arguments that God is
-
▼
August
(14)
Labels
- AAR_01 (1)
- abortion (43)
- Adams (Scott) (1)
- Arguments about God (68)
- Arrington (Barry) (3)
- atheism (127)
- Auster (29)
- Babylon Bee (1)
- Bassior (Jordan) (6)
- Benjamin (Carl) (1)
- Benscoter (Doug) (3)
- Biden (9)
- Big Gay (9)
- Big Organ (10)
- blogs (284)
- Boot (Alexander) (1)
- Boreing (Jeremy) (1)
- Bush Derangement Syndrome (1)
- Chesterton (4)
- children (23)
- Chisholm (Shirley) (1)
- Christianity (124)
- Christiansen (Matt) (2)
- Christmas (4)
- Clinton (Hillary) (18)
- compromise (57)
- conservatism (102)
- Coulter (Ann) (4)
- Craig (William Lane) (1)
- creationism (4)
- crime (60)
- criticism (127)
- Crowder (Steven) (1)
- Cruz (Ted) (6)
- culture (280)
- Culture of Death (110)
- cynical marketing (318)
- Daily Wire (1)
- Dalrock (3)
- Dalrymple (6)
- Dawkins (Richard) (11)
- Deborah Gyapong (1)
- Derbyshire (1)
- Easter (9)
- economics (58)
- Egerer (Jeremy) (2)
- Egnor (Michael) (30)
- emergence (25)
- emotion (3)
- environmentalism (22)
- epistemology (69)
- evolutionism (38)
- family (35)
- federalism (111)
- feminism (99)
- Feser (Edward) (13)
- Flannagan (Matt) (1)
- free trade and protectionism (2)
- free will (108)
- Friedman (David) (2)
- Fry (Stephen) (1)
- Gagdad Bob (2)
- Geert Wilders (4)
- Gilson (Tom) (1)
- Glenn Beck (1)
- Goldberg (Jonah) (1)
- Greenfield (Daniel) (2)
- Haley (Nikki) (2)
- Harris (Kamala) (4)
- Harris (Sam) (1)
- Hegseth (Pete) (1)
- history (9)
- Hitchens (Christopher) (4)
- Hossenfelder (Sabine) (1)
- humor (129)
- Hunter (Cornelius) (3)
- Hyacinth Girl (7)
- idolatry (120)
- Iliocentrism (75)
- incrementalism (53)
- Islam (49)
- Jackson (Kevin) (3)
- Jacobson (William) (7)
- Judaism (5)
- judgment (4)
- justice (105)
- KairosFocus (3)
- Kelley (Megyn) (1)
- Kennedy (Ted) (2)
- Keyes (Alan) (2)
- Knowles (Michael) (2)
- Kristor (12)
- KT Cat (19)
- language (42)
- leftism (532)
- Lewis (C.S.) (8)
- liberalism (471)
- libertarianism (92)
- liberty (199)
- Limbaugh (Rush) (3)
- literature (1)
- Lockerbie (2)
- Loftus (John) (1)
- Logan (Anthony Brian) (1)
- logic (23)
- love (10)
- MacIntyre (Auron) (1)
- materialism and naturalism (110)
- Matteo (7)
- McCain (John) (1)
- McCain (Robert Stacy) (9)
- McGrew (Lydia) (10)
- McMahan (Austen) (1)
- mercy (11)
- modernism and post-modernism (414)
- Money (John) (1)
- morality (287)
- Morning Joe (1)
- Mother Theresa (2)
- Murray (William J) (2)
- My house (10)
- natural born citizen (14)
- New Atheists (37)
- nihilism (177)
- O'Leary (Denyse) (1)
- Obama (61)
- Obamination (141)
- One True Bureaucracy (19)
- ontology (36)
- overheard (129)
- Owens (Candace) (1)
- Oz Conservative (6)
- paganism (10)
- Palin (3)
- Parks (Bob) (51)
- Peterson (Jordan) (1)
- pious myths (249)
- politics (501)
- Pool (Tim) (3)
- Prager (Dennis) (1)
- Prokop (Bob) (3)
- Providence (1)
- Quartering (2)
- Race Card (8)
- racism (55)
- Rageaholic (1)
- Ray (John Jay) (4)
- Reagan (3)
- reason (157)
- Reed (Fred) (1)
- relativism (79)
- Reppert (Victor) (28)
- respect (35)
- Road to Hell (321)
- Rosen Cohen (Laura) (13)
- Rubin (Dave) (1)
- Rubio(Marco) (1)
- Rule of Law (88)
- Sagan (Carl) (5)
- Sailer (Steve) (1)
- scientism (77)
- secularism (109)
- Sensing (Donald) (1)
- shades of grey (32)
- Shaidle (Kathy) (35)
- Shapiro (Ben) (1)
- Siler (Jason) (1)
- skepticism (11)
- slavery (3)
- socialism (142)
- society (264)
- Sowell (Thomas) (6)
- statism (83)
- Steyn (Mark) (25)
- story idea (2)
- Straughan (Karen) (2)
- Surber (Don) (2)
- terrorism (37)
- The Pope (8)
- The World Was Younger Then (9)
- theism (1)
- theodicy (8)
- Thinking Housewife (2)
- treason (5)
- tribalism (6)
- Trump (15)
- Trump Derangement Syndrome (4)
- Tyson (Neil deGrasse) (1)
- Urban wildlife (9)
- Uygur (Cenk) (1)
- Vallicella (37)
- Vox Day (51)
- Walsh (Matt) (4)
- Warren (David) (7)
- West (Allen) (4)
- West (Diana) (1)
- What's up? (111)
- Williams (Walter) (5)
- Wilson (Douglas) (51)
- Wood (David) (1)
- Wright (John C.) (8)
- Wright (N.T.) (1)
- Yeagley (David) (1)
17 comments:
Positively brilliant
Edward's piece was a farago of untruths and misrepresentations
Eric,
We already know that you can't read ... unless it's that you can't reason.
You have three choices:
1) substantiate your assertion ... good luck on that;
2) admit the falseness of your assertion;
3) don't bother posting anything on my blog again.
Actually Ilion, I withdraw my remark. What Edward says is wise, accurate and meaningful. I'm impressed.
I guess the difference however is his underlying position that homosexual marriage should not be allowed. I disagree with this.
So we could say that his article is basically describing the 'battle-lines', the outcome is yet to be seen.
In regards to your claim that I can't read, did you not read my response to your assertion that I didn't understand what I read. I note that you did not respond to my reply.
Can one argue with those that operate from different premises?
The neo-Cathars will not listen any more than the old Cathars
"Can one argue with those that operate from different premises?"
It's difficult ... because one has first to thrash out the premises, and people frequently don't understand how to go about doing that, or even that it needs to be done.
And, let's be blunt, the people holding to the incorrect premises will frequently engage histrionic fits and other irrational or anti-logical acts so as to protect their premises from rational examination.
Eric: "What Edward says is wise, accurate and meaningful. I'm impressed."
All petty sarcasm aside, yes it is.
Now, work on turning being impressed into learning something.
Eric: "I guess the difference however is his underlying position that homosexual marriage should not be allowed."
Actually, no. It's that there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" -- just as, and contrary to all the empty-headed statements by all the talking-heads, Prop 8 did not "ban gay marriage." What Prop 8 did is explicitly incorporate the definition of marriage into the California Constitution.
Eric: "In regards to your claim that I can't read, did you not read my response to your assertion that I didn't understand what I read. I note that you did not respond to my reply. "
I don't answer to you; I don't justify myself to you.
Your response amounts to the demand that unless I can force you to admit that your initial accusation against me is false, then it is true.
I wasn't being sarcastic Ilion, I meant what I said.
There have been times in history and a number of countries nowadays where there is such a thing as homosexual marriage.
They incorporated some peoples definition of marriage. It obviously wasn't everyone's definition.
OK, have it your way, doesn't really clarify anything though.
"There have been times in history and a number of countries nowadays where there is such a thing as homosexual marriage."
I think you're playing with a tendentious definition of marriage when you refer to history.
But, in any event, it doesn't matter. In *our* culture, marriage is between one man and one woman, and can be nothing else; in *our* nation and culture there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage," nor can be. -- If you want to play multi-culti, then you'd better be prepared to stick with it.
"I wasn't being sarcastic Ilion, I meant what I said."
And yet, just a few posts before you were calling Feser a liar ... or, at best, stupid.
So, I think what we've learned here is that either you cannot read, or you cannot reason ... or you're dishonest. It's one the three, or some explanation all-but-indistinguishable from one of the three.
My initial response was to Edward's underlying opinion. I didn't call him stupid. I said it was a farago of untruths and misrepresentations. This was because, as I have said, what he has written is really well put. It's just that any aspects pertaining to his opinion are disputable. Yes, it was stupid of me to go off half-cocked. Acknowledged.
Throughout history homosexual marriages have, at times, and in various cultures, been considered equal to heterosexual marriage. And there are countries in the world today where this is so.
Cultures and nations change, the female vote, the black vote, inter-racial marriage etc. So I think that homosexual marriage will eventuate.
Eric,
Pls support you assertion about historical prevalence of homosexual marriage.
I didn't say that it was or had been prevalent Gyan, just that it has and does occur.
http://www.colorq.org/articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage
http://molly.kalafut.org/marriage/world-laws.html
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History
Eric,
One of your references does not support your point-quite the reverse
It is a review of Boswell's book published in First Things. An exerpt
Even the most cursory examination of Boswell's documentation exposes the way he has struggled to force a group of documents to conform to his conclusions. Despite its facade of scholarship, the book is studded with unwarranted a priori assumptions, with arguments from silence, and with dubious, or in some cases outrageously false, translations of critical terms
Gyan, I always endeavor to not only post links which are derive3d from pro-whatever sites. That means that opposing views are also sometimes cited.
You have spoken regarding one of the links, how about the others?
Eric,
Frankly it is not possible to judge if the customs of small and remote tribes are being properly interpreted or not. We see that non-believers even quite intelligent non-believers dont seem to get the point of some particular religious practice.
Similarly, reporting of scholars (with or without axes to grind) with little context is not illuminating. Say two-women African ceremonies: was the relation sexual?
Doesnt their tribe normally has arranged marriages? Who supports them? Where do they live? etc.
The fact is Gyan, that research shows that homosexual marriages took place in earlier civilizations. I wouldn't call the Greek and Roman empires 'small and remote tribes'.
Some of the historical references explicitly describe the associated sexual activities. There may have been varying levels of sexual activity amongst them but it took place in at least some of them.
Homosexual marriages also take place in some countries today and I'm pretty sure most do include sexual activity.
Not sure what exactly do you mean by marriage. Was there really same-sex marriage among Greeks? I never heard of it. Could you tell more.
Frankly I do not trust sociologists and anthropologists. Chesterton said one need not visit a distant tribe to learn about Man; one can do it in one's own street.
Post a Comment