Pride Week in My Little Town, and Why I Won't be Going

[ulyssesSgrant]

Once again the explanation in religious/theological circles is that "the divine spirit" allowed them to instantly learn foreign languages (like you see in movies with possessed people speaking greek and latin etc).

I've never heard anyone claim that. On the contrary, koine Greek was the most common language in the ancient eastern Mediterranean, so it's perfectly natural that Christians spoke it, especially given that - according to Acts, at least - Antioch was one of the major centres of the religion. Whether Jesus himself or his immediate disciples spoke Greek is a moot point, but it doesn't really matter as there's no reason to think that any of them wrote any part of the New Testament. But there's certainly no reason other than snobbery to suppose that "working class Jews of lowly profession" couldn't speak Greek. Paul was a tent maker and he seems to have got by.

I'm surprised that you've never heard anyone claim that. It's probably not a claim made in theological circles, but it definitely seems like something that would be floated around some religious circles given the biblical basis for it. Although, I suppose most people who know enough to worry about how the disciples spoke greek would quickly discover that natural explanation you gave. Still, for people taking the bible at face value there is no reason to think the spirit didn't teach them greek.

Spoiler :

Acts 2
1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Also, most of the actual disciples of Jesus were manual laborers. It is unlikely they spoke koine greek (those who had more lucrative professions certainly could).
You don't really need to know the lingua franca if you are just a fisherman.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

In practice your partnership isn't completely independent of outside parties. You may or may not want an institution or social norms to discourage interference from unwelcome parties.

yes, it is never truly independent of outside parties, but then again no human interaction is

T
You claim that what you and your girlfriend have, which I take to be undefined interactions and emotions that you share, is better than any marriage 'you've seen' and therefore serves as evidence that marriage shouldn't be a requirement for a permanent relationship. In the second post you go on to say that institutional marriage has been a part of every culture that has ever existed, which, as far as I can see, is extremely strong evidence for marriage's necessity. (Your pointing out that they are all different doesn't weaken that in the slightest, it only shows that such an institution may take many forms, some of which may be less moral or healthy than others.)

No, what you explicitly said was that you wanted to leave room for more 'open, inclusive' relationships. Not to define the ritual in a new way, not to change it, but to render it a completely open-ended, irreligious commitment to being with another person. Sacredness, monogamy, and cultural continuity (i.e. doing the same thing as your ancestors and descendants) are stripped away entirely. If you truly see the value in ritual, you must understand how that is pure destruction.

Okay, first, ask your local Rabbi if that sort of marriage is exclusively Christian. Secondly, the model is indisputably more ethical than what the vast majority of cultures did (polygamy, bride-purchasing, old men with preteens). Thirdly, the societies that created the modern world, where you now live, uniformly practiced this type of marriage - which should suggest that exchanging it for another type might nit be as easy as it appears. Finally, marriage is an essential institution for poor and violent areas, which I wouldn't expect someone who travels the world to understand.

Think it is restrictive? Exclusionary? That's the point. It roots people in a tangible part of society. I don't want to live in a world without grandmothers or surnames or family trees. The nuclear family definitely isn't perfect, as it lacks an extended kinship group, but that's not marriage's fault.

I disagree. It is supremely obvious that human beings do not know what is good for themselves. They might think they do, but always end up bitten for it, however long that takes.

i don't think my relationship is superior to any marriage, just that it's a great long-term relationship independent of marriage

no, the presence of marriage in many cultures doesn't mean it is a necessity, just like the presence of slavery in virtually all ancient societies meant it was necessary. you're just making embarrassing logical errors. from the sheer fact that it exists does not logically follow that it is necessary. but I'm not surprised, seeing as you're a big fan of non sequitors.

but to render it a completely open-ended, irreligious commitment to being with another person. yes, exactly. Sacredness, monogamy, and cultural continuity (i.e. doing the same thing as your ancestors and descendants) are stripped away entirely. yes. you're mistakening ritual for tradition. a ritual is literally just any performance with cultural value. rituals aren't simply religious, any culture has developed sets of rituals, and supplanted them with new rituals, constantly. what you are worried about is the erosion of tradition, not the dimension of the ritual. a ritual could be something as simple as giving a gift to your partner, Christian tradition is putting a ring on your spouse's finger on the day of your wedding. most rituals are completely non-religious actually. you'd go good to read some cultural science for all your hatred of it, I think. might broaden your horizon on the meaning of rituals in the 20th and 21st century.

bride-purchasing, old men with preteens. that's exactly what marriage was like traditionally, genius. women being married off at age 12 regardless of their choice was a common sight until way into the 19th century. Thirdly, the societies that created the modern world, where you now live, uniformly practiced this type of marriage - which should suggest that exchanging it for another type might nit be as easy as it appears. the societies that created the modern world also drank from lead chalices and thought badly about hygiene for a long time. again, absolute non-sequitor. just because we've been doing something forever (like rape, for example) doesn't mean it's in any way legit or necessary. but I'm not even proposing to get rid of marriage, that's just you trying to mispaint my argument. all I said is that we should be striving towards new forms of relationships and commitment, and that religious authorities shouldn't have a say in stately matters of partnership. I don't mind people marrying, couldn't give less of a hoot.

Finally, marriage is an essential institution for poor and violent areas, which I wouldn't expect someone who travels the world to understand. this sentence is incredibly funny because it makes no sense on any level whatsoever.

I disagree. It is supremely obvious that human beings do not know what is good for themselves. They might think they do, but always end up bitten for it, however long that takes. if most people knew what was good for them we wouldn't be facing climate change, so yeah, evidently people don't know what is good for them and their offspring. your idea is to force everyone to act our your power fantasy. me, personally, I'd prefer if people were allowed to make mistakes, make horsehockey choices, so maybe they could learn from it. or maybe we'll all die in 10 years and never see the heat death of the universe.

 

[Plotinus]

Check your local university.

I work in a university and I have never encountered ideas like these. Do you have actual, particular, concrete sources to which you can direct us?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I work in a university and I have never encountered ideas like these. Do you have actual, particular, concrete sources to which you can direct us?

He's one of those people who think "SJWS" and the like control universities

Imagine actually believing that forcing people into gendered roles they don't necessarily want is a healthy and socially sustainable thing, it's like they hate freedom or something lol

 

[Zardnaar]

yes, it is never truly independent of outside parties, but then again no human interaction is



i don't think my relationship is superior to any marriage, just that it's a great long-term relationship independent of marriage

no, the presence of marriage in many cultures doesn't mean it is a necessity, just like the presence of slavery in virtually all ancient societies meant it was necessary. you're just making embarrassing logical errors. from the sheer fact that it exists does not logically follow that it is necessary. but I'm not surprised, seeing as you're a big fan of non sequitors.

but to render it a completely open-ended, irreligious commitment to being with another person. yes, exactly. Sacredness, monogamy, and cultural continuity (i.e. doing the same thing as your ancestors and descendants) are stripped away entirely. yes. you're mistakening ritual for tradition. a ritual is literally just any performance with cultural value. rituals aren't simply religious, any culture has developed sets of rituals, and supplanted them with new rituals, constantly. what you are worried about is the erosion of tradition, not the dimension of the ritual. a ritual could be something as simple as giving a gift to your partner, Christian tradition is putting a ring on your spouse's finger on the day of your wedding. most rituals are completely non-religious actually. you'd go good to read some cultural science for all your hatred of it, I think. might broaden your horizon on the meaning of rituals in the 20th and 21st century.

bride-purchasing, old men with preteens. that's exactly what marriage was like traditionally, genius. women being married off at age 12 regardless of their choice was a common sight until way into the 19th century. Thirdly, the societies that created the modern world, where you now live, uniformly practiced this type of marriage - which should suggest that exchanging it for another type might nit be as easy as it appears. the societies that created the modern world also drank from lead chalices and thought badly about hygiene for a long time. again, absolute non-sequitor. just because we've been doing something forever (like rape, for example) doesn't mean it's in any way legit or necessary. but I'm not even proposing to get rid of marriage, that's just you trying to mispaint my argument. all I said is that we should be striving towards new forms of relationships and commitment, and that religious authorities shouldn't have a say in stately matters of partnership. I don't mind people marrying, couldn't give less of a hoot.

Finally, marriage is an essential institution for poor and violent areas, which I wouldn't expect someone who travels the world to understand. this sentence is incredibly funny because it makes no sense on any level whatsoever.

I disagree. It is supremely obvious that human beings do not know what is good for themselves. They might think they do, but always end up bitten for it, however long that takes. if most people knew what was good for them we wouldn't be facing climate change, so yeah, evidently people don't know what is good for them and their offspring. your idea is to force everyone to act our your power fantasy. me, personally, I'd prefer if people were allowed to make mistakes, make ****** choices, so maybe they could learn from it. or maybe we'll all die in 10 years and never see the heat death of the universe.

Average age of marriage was higher than 12.

Even in medieval times it was closer to 19iirc.

12 year olds getting married did happen though.

 

[Hrothbern]

In medieval and early modern era, at least in the Low Lands, it was for common people normal to have sex before marrying your loved one / "fiancee", and normal to marry with your "fiancee" when a separate household was financially do-able.
Economics of your own place to live and start a family.
In practice women were older than 20, men were older than 25.
The general economical situation played a role on this marrying behaviour.
In worse economical periods, or areas, marriage was postponed, but having sex with your beloved not.

Many people believe that there was a sexual revolution after WW2.
Well... I think you can better say that there was a sexual repression that started (in NL) at the end of the 19th century.
If you read diaries, correspondence and court trials of the 16th up to 19th century, you can read that everything happened.
And yes... people in higher functions or positions did complain that they were hold to higher (church) standards than the commoners.
Which did not prevent them finding work-arounds.

EDIT
do mind BTW that traditional nobility did not play a big role in the Low Lands during all those many centuries since Charlemagne on the life of the commoners. Not comparable to England, core HRE, France, Spain, etc. More like Nordic areas.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Average age of marriage was higher than 12.

Even in medieval times it was closer to 19iirc.

12 year olds getting married did happen though.

oh yeah for sure, didn't want to mischaracterize. I think what's the norm changes quite a bit from antiquity to the middle ages to the enlightenment, and changes even more when one looks past europe, but it was usually closer to what we now consider legal age, as you say.

 

[Mouthwash]

The idea that there are roles made for you by virtue of your genetic lottery is already strict, if you ask me.

I... okay, this is an astounding statement. Is it restrictive to be a human being, then? You might be much happier as a dog.

I don't think one's own biology is inherently oppressive. I know, I'm a monster.

But it's also possible to interpret that as merely 'what the majority of your gender does'. The problem with that is that it's still influenced by the culture of the past...

Which makes it evil. Everyone in the past lived in unendurable misery and pain until the gay revolution struck off our shackles a few years ago.

i don't think my relationship is superior to any marriage, just that it's a great long-term relationship independent of marriage

You explicitly said so, though.

no, the presence of marriage in many cultures doesn't mean it is a necessity, just like the presence of slavery in virtually all ancient societies meant it was necessary. you're just making embarrassing logical errors. from the sheer fact that it exists does not logically follow that it is necessary.

Slavery was always tied to the economy (an inherently scalable thing), and was in fact eliminated in certain places. The only real change in human gender relations is that sex is no longer strictly tied to childbirth, which doesn't seem enough to do away with every institution surrounding it.

yes. you're mistakening ritual for tradition. a ritual is literally just any performance with cultural value. rituals aren't simply religious, any culture has developed sets of rituals, and supplanted them with new rituals, constantly. what you are worried about is the erosion of tradition, not the dimension of the ritual. a ritual could be something as simple as giving a gift to your partner, Christian tradition is putting a ring on your spouse's finger on the day of your wedding. most rituals are completely non-religious actually. you'd go good to read some cultural science for all your hatred of it, I think. might broaden your horizon on the meaning of rituals in the 20th and 21st century.

I mean, tradition is hardly less fundamental. I also think that 'rituals' are specifically religious (otherwise it's just custom), but that's just a semantic difference.

that's exactly what marriage was like traditionally, genius. women being married off at age 12 regardless of their choice was a common sight until way into the 19th century.

Among whom? Highlander clans? Aristocracy? Mormons?

the societies that created the modern world also drank from lead chalices and thought badly about hygiene for a long time. again, absolute non-sequitor.

I love irony.

just because we've been doing something forever (like rape, for example) doesn't mean it's in any way legit or necessary.

But just because you don't like the way things are doesn't mean your ideas for creating a better system will work. In fact, I'd say 90% of the time it's better to stick with my reasoning.

Of course, no society without a system for organizing relationships has ever existed, meaning you aren't just trying to change out our current system, but create a society that is brand new in the history of our species. If you think that's worth striving for... well, all I can say is this time try not to destroy millions of lives before admitting your failure.

but I'm not even proposing to get rid of marriage, that's just you trying to mispaint my argument. all I said is that we should be striving towards new forms of relationships and commitment,

i.e., render marriage little more than arbitrary preference.

this sentence is incredibly funny because it makes no sense on any level whatsoever.

You travel to different countries, no? I got the impression you are a worldly fellow. Thus, I expect you do not understand what poor people tied to a violent community need (but Western progressives have always had a proud tradition of experimenting with their favorite social theories on the poor).

if most people knew what was good for them we wouldn't be facing climate change, so yeah, evidently people don't know what is good for them and their offspring.

Ah, climate change, whose main purpose is allowing liberals to pretend that they some sort of investment in future generations.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think one's own biology is inherently oppressive. I know, I'm a monster.

It is bro. Being trapped in this sack of slowly-rotting meat really sucks sometimes

 

[Mouthwash]

It is bro. Being trapped in this sack of slowly-rotting meat really sucks sometimes

I mean, that's a valid feeling, but you understand it indicates something is wrong with you (your modern living), not your genes?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Also, if you're actually rotting you should probably seek medical advice.

 

[Patine]

Also, if you're actually rotting you should probably seek medical advice.

Or a Voundun Houngan, as you might be turning to a zombie.

 

[red_elk]

From what I know about zombyism, it's acquired condition, not a genetic one.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you are scared of rotting you will never write the Chants of Maldoror.

 

[Zardnaar]

To many straight guys in a gay bar lol.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/li...aight-guys-showing-up-at-aucklands-family-bar

Legally you can't refuse gays service here. But you can't refuse straight people either.

 

[Josu]

It's become too political.

I am late to the discussion and I haven't read all the replies, so maybe what I am going to arguee is allready said.

IMHO the pride parade is by definition a political act.
There are countries in which being LGTB is a crime and it is prosecuted, in others they do not have equal rights etc.
Pride Parade is an act in which you LGTB people, stand up and say here we are, we are equal and we are going to fight for our rights.

And this is plain and simple politics.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am late to the discussion and I haven't read all the replies, so maybe what I am going to arguee is allready said.

IMHO the pride parade is by definition a political act.
There are countries in which being LGTB is a crime and it is prosecuted, in others they do not have equal rights etc.
Pride Parade is an act in which you LGTB people, stand up and say here we are, we are equal and we are going to fight for our rights.

And this is plain and simple politics.

They stopped doing them here as it became counter productive/annoying or pointless. They had topless women on motor cycles and called them Hero Parades.

No one really cares about people being gay and it's coming enough there's nothing heroic about it.

It stopped being about gay rights and became pay attention to me.

 

[Broken_Erika]

It is bro. Being trapped in this sack of slowly-rotting meat really sucks sometimes

Quit whining and eat your brains!

 

[Kyriakos]

Quit whining and eat your brains!

I see Lexicus as more of the Good Guy Greg type: