"How do you suppose a wedding between 2 men can be arranged such that it balances (1) respect for the incredible importance of marriage as a social institution, ..." -- You respect the feministic destruction of this social institution, not the destroyed social institution. And it was a destruction perpetrated (by the feminists you're following) in a spirit of loathing and cruel violence.
"... (2) acknowledgement of differing comfort levels of attendees of a "gay wedding, ..." -- They will either maliciously enjoy their contribution to social ruin and their participation in feministic mockery of natural law or they will feel resentful disgust -- resentful because expressions of disgust are forbidden.
"... and (3) willingness to celebrate an inherently relatively novel manifestation of the institution in a manner befitting to us, the couple?" -- You will not be manifesting any institution other than the anti-institution of antinomian ritual-orgy.
While in quality I generally agree with all your points, in degree the comment I would've made would pull back.
This could easily derail into an entire "morals of homosexuality generally" debate, but let's draw a line around this instance, this fellow and his earnest wishes to be himself while acknowledging many will disagree, and that he respects their difference from him, enough that he's willing to curb or change aspects of what he wants to do to make room for them. As opposed to the stanard practice of shoving a rainbow flag in your face and calling you a bigot on the "wrong side" of morality. To be frank, the Progressives became that fundamentalist in reaction to objective cruelty on some people's parts on the "right side" of morality. (I use scare quotes because we're in a public arena, where convincing some of these interlocutors that God even exists is a pre-requisite to taking this side, and that's a hard sell.)
I certainly agree with you, coming from an orthodox Roman Catholic view, that no amount of bending to fit will really get past the hard illegitimacy, even desecration, of the event. That said, his honest humility is to be admired, let's not throw the wheat out with the chaff. At the end of the day, we're stuck on this rock together -- thus my use of scare quotes -- and I think establishing common ground and some courtesy might be the only way for us to live in peace. This man is willing to play give-and-take, and it seems to me he's even open to us expressing our disagreement, if we could do so as neighbors. I value this civility.
To Inukituk: I'm happy you are happy. I would feel flattered for being invited, yet graciously decline. I wish you both well!
I don't feel any hostility toward this guy. I just wish homos would be on our side, not on the feminists' side. They should know better; they're capable of theorizing and lifting heavy weights and so forth. Hey, what does Curtis's pal Mary mean by "courtesy-gaps in the 4th dimension" (in the post following this one)?
Feminism boils down to insistence that all women do masculine things, an insistence resulting from the combination of (1) denial that there are natural sex-roles and (2) contempt for feminine existence.
1) You seem to be referring to your first point, about defining marriage, and asserting that the modern idea of marriage is a bastardized version of an older standard, ruined by feminism in particular; then drawing contrast that you would prefer gay people would, if they were to revere marriage, at least be aimed at the older standard? Something to that effect. Instinctively I recognize some of the differences between bastardized and original marriage, but then I can't put together how gays would pursue the original. It seems to me, as Inukituk points out, that the idea that gays could be married at all is a novel one, and I assert is predicated on the acceptance of the bastardized version of marriage in the first place. So I don't see how they could come around to the same side? Please elaborate your original statement.
2) I also am wondering what the "courtesy-gaps in the 4th dimensions" refers to as well. For whatever reason, the phrase on its face implies to me, "I'll forgive you have slept with other people prior to me, or after me if there's an 'after', or any of your cheating on someone else before as long as you don't cheat on me now." But in the context he's using it, it seems like it is a clever phrasing for calling it "monogamy," but in practice "an open marriage" which is a conflict in terms in the first place. I just don't see how that phrasing snugly fits into that idea. Maybe saying "I want you to fully commit today, for the future, with the understanding that there are holidays from that commitment for some gaps in that future?"
On (1) -- My position is that men shouldn't marry each other, and that homosexual men should be wise enough to support socially necessary practices in which they're incapable of participating, such as reproductive lifelong monogamy. By marrying each other they aid and abet the feministic destruction of this socially necessary practice. On (2) -- I thought that the target was "serial monogamy," not "open marriage."
"[Allowing gay marriage aids and abets the feministic destruction...]" This point I think I resonate with most as a defense against gay marriage, it's more subtle yet important than people think it is, the "actually" to the "but it's a victimless crime and doesn't affect you" defense.
Then I take it your "original vs. feminist" dichotomy is equivalent to "straight vs. homosexual" in marriage comparisons? As opposed to what I thought, "original vs. feminist" was equivalent to "original straight marriage holding a certain mythos vs. feminist straight marriage that works a different flimsy way," and gay marriage being downstream of the latter. Am I better understanding you now?
Feminists deny that women are naturally mothers, so they say that marriage is just a publicly celebrated declaration of mutual copulative commitment. Homosexuals who marry each other agree with this feministic understanding of marriage; they say, "That's right, and we're copulatively committed to each other so you should publicly celebrate our declaration of mutual copulative commitment just as you publicly celebrate declarations of mutual boyfriend-girlfriend copulative commitment." This in turn affirms the feministic view of marriage, which leads to divorce as soon as married women think that they can find a more exciting mutual copulative commitment elsewhere.
Which sounds like '"original straight marriage holding a certain mythos vs. feminist straight marriage that works a different flimsy way' and gay marriage being downstream of the latter.'"
By "feministic" I mean "derived from or associated with feminism" -- feminism being the proposal that women are merely inferior men and have no essential orientation toward motherhood. So, feministic marriage becomes the marriage of an inferior man (a woman) and a superior man (a man). So, homosexual men naturally say, "If a superior man can marry an inferior man, why can't two superior men marry each other?"
I would accept. My world of liberal elites is my natural habitat. I don’t live in any semblance of a “community”, so the notion that somebody’s life decisions affect this non-existent community doesn’t apply.
Once I decide to home-school my kids and build a tall fence around my house, I will stop caring altogether.
Hah, my family tradition (which I followed) is also City Hall. I would chalk it up to my parents getting married in the USSR, but it was unusual even for the Soviet folk. In fact, the traditional Soviet wedding isn’t too different from that described in The Ancient City (I actually found that part of the book really creepy - WTF, the prehistoric Indo-European culture is still alive and well, and will likely never fully die out).
I think this City Hall tradition is due to the extreme atomicity of some modern families. You call it the “trad life”, but, IMO, it isn’t really. It’s just the natural state of people that grow up untethered from “the community”.
Gay Mirror
"How do you suppose a wedding between 2 men can be arranged such that it balances (1) respect for the incredible importance of marriage as a social institution, ..." -- You respect the feministic destruction of this social institution, not the destroyed social institution. And it was a destruction perpetrated (by the feminists you're following) in a spirit of loathing and cruel violence.
"... (2) acknowledgement of differing comfort levels of attendees of a "gay wedding, ..." -- They will either maliciously enjoy their contribution to social ruin and their participation in feministic mockery of natural law or they will feel resentful disgust -- resentful because expressions of disgust are forbidden.
"... and (3) willingness to celebrate an inherently relatively novel manifestation of the institution in a manner befitting to us, the couple?" -- You will not be manifesting any institution other than the anti-institution of antinomian ritual-orgy.
While in quality I generally agree with all your points, in degree the comment I would've made would pull back.
This could easily derail into an entire "morals of homosexuality generally" debate, but let's draw a line around this instance, this fellow and his earnest wishes to be himself while acknowledging many will disagree, and that he respects their difference from him, enough that he's willing to curb or change aspects of what he wants to do to make room for them. As opposed to the stanard practice of shoving a rainbow flag in your face and calling you a bigot on the "wrong side" of morality. To be frank, the Progressives became that fundamentalist in reaction to objective cruelty on some people's parts on the "right side" of morality. (I use scare quotes because we're in a public arena, where convincing some of these interlocutors that God even exists is a pre-requisite to taking this side, and that's a hard sell.)
I certainly agree with you, coming from an orthodox Roman Catholic view, that no amount of bending to fit will really get past the hard illegitimacy, even desecration, of the event. That said, his honest humility is to be admired, let's not throw the wheat out with the chaff. At the end of the day, we're stuck on this rock together -- thus my use of scare quotes -- and I think establishing common ground and some courtesy might be the only way for us to live in peace. This man is willing to play give-and-take, and it seems to me he's even open to us expressing our disagreement, if we could do so as neighbors. I value this civility.
To Inukituk: I'm happy you are happy. I would feel flattered for being invited, yet graciously decline. I wish you both well!
I don't feel any hostility toward this guy. I just wish homos would be on our side, not on the feminists' side. They should know better; they're capable of theorizing and lifting heavy weights and so forth. Hey, what does Curtis's pal Mary mean by "courtesy-gaps in the 4th dimension" (in the post following this one)?
Could you define feminism as you understand it? Based on prior conversations, I don’t think we have the same concept in mind when we use the word.
Feminism boils down to insistence that all women do masculine things, an insistence resulting from the combination of (1) denial that there are natural sex-roles and (2) contempt for feminine existence.
1) You seem to be referring to your first point, about defining marriage, and asserting that the modern idea of marriage is a bastardized version of an older standard, ruined by feminism in particular; then drawing contrast that you would prefer gay people would, if they were to revere marriage, at least be aimed at the older standard? Something to that effect. Instinctively I recognize some of the differences between bastardized and original marriage, but then I can't put together how gays would pursue the original. It seems to me, as Inukituk points out, that the idea that gays could be married at all is a novel one, and I assert is predicated on the acceptance of the bastardized version of marriage in the first place. So I don't see how they could come around to the same side? Please elaborate your original statement.
2) I also am wondering what the "courtesy-gaps in the 4th dimensions" refers to as well. For whatever reason, the phrase on its face implies to me, "I'll forgive you have slept with other people prior to me, or after me if there's an 'after', or any of your cheating on someone else before as long as you don't cheat on me now." But in the context he's using it, it seems like it is a clever phrasing for calling it "monogamy," but in practice "an open marriage" which is a conflict in terms in the first place. I just don't see how that phrasing snugly fits into that idea. Maybe saying "I want you to fully commit today, for the future, with the understanding that there are holidays from that commitment for some gaps in that future?"
On (1) -- My position is that men shouldn't marry each other, and that homosexual men should be wise enough to support socially necessary practices in which they're incapable of participating, such as reproductive lifelong monogamy. By marrying each other they aid and abet the feministic destruction of this socially necessary practice. On (2) -- I thought that the target was "serial monogamy," not "open marriage."
"[Allowing gay marriage aids and abets the feministic destruction...]" This point I think I resonate with most as a defense against gay marriage, it's more subtle yet important than people think it is, the "actually" to the "but it's a victimless crime and doesn't affect you" defense.
Then I take it your "original vs. feminist" dichotomy is equivalent to "straight vs. homosexual" in marriage comparisons? As opposed to what I thought, "original vs. feminist" was equivalent to "original straight marriage holding a certain mythos vs. feminist straight marriage that works a different flimsy way," and gay marriage being downstream of the latter. Am I better understanding you now?
Feminists deny that women are naturally mothers, so they say that marriage is just a publicly celebrated declaration of mutual copulative commitment. Homosexuals who marry each other agree with this feministic understanding of marriage; they say, "That's right, and we're copulatively committed to each other so you should publicly celebrate our declaration of mutual copulative commitment just as you publicly celebrate declarations of mutual boyfriend-girlfriend copulative commitment." This in turn affirms the feministic view of marriage, which leads to divorce as soon as married women think that they can find a more exciting mutual copulative commitment elsewhere.
Which sounds like '"original straight marriage holding a certain mythos vs. feminist straight marriage that works a different flimsy way' and gay marriage being downstream of the latter.'"
By "feministic" I mean "derived from or associated with feminism" -- feminism being the proposal that women are merely inferior men and have no essential orientation toward motherhood. So, feministic marriage becomes the marriage of an inferior man (a woman) and a superior man (a man). So, homosexual men naturally say, "If a superior man can marry an inferior man, why can't two superior men marry each other?"
I would accept. My world of liberal elites is my natural habitat. I don’t live in any semblance of a “community”, so the notion that somebody’s life decisions affect this non-existent community doesn’t apply.
Once I decide to home-school my kids and build a tall fence around my house, I will stop caring altogether.
The tradition is surely to get married to some woman and have kids then go secretly cruising on the side. Easier than ever now.
I like to think Moldbug deliberately picked this question because of that one guy's comment on the last one.
Yup, I vote Seal and David Blaine wedding.
I'd want Curtis as my wedding singer, that's for sure!
Hah, my family tradition (which I followed) is also City Hall. I would chalk it up to my parents getting married in the USSR, but it was unusual even for the Soviet folk. In fact, the traditional Soviet wedding isn’t too different from that described in The Ancient City (I actually found that part of the book really creepy - WTF, the prehistoric Indo-European culture is still alive and well, and will likely never fully die out).
I think this City Hall tradition is due to the extreme atomicity of some modern families. You call it the “trad life”, but, IMO, it isn’t really. It’s just the natural state of people that grow up untethered from “the community”.
Thanks for mentioning Oriana Fallaci - I have never heard of her before, and after I read her story, I want to read what she’s written, too.
And, of course, the Pope in this story is the only based Pope of the last century - Benedict XVI. Couldn’t have been anyone else
This is so wrong, as proved by your own Three Layers. If we honor the Three Layers, we have:
Gentry: Do whatever you want, but don't frighten the horses.
Commoners: Stick to boy-girl weddings. Tradition.
Clients: Just get married, please. For the children.
> Obviously I am not gay. Or if I am, I don’t know I am
That's exactly what a deeply closeted gay man would say.