Why men won't marry you

[kmoney]

I understand how it may be difficult to grant this. In defense of it, I wish to note, cursorily, that the State takes an interest in marriage. This is evident in the issuance of marriage licenses. Furthermore, it should be noted that the family is the very basis and ground of the political society. An offense against marriage is an offense against the political society itself, over which the State has care.

In committing adultery, the woman denies the State its rights of the assurance of legitimate heirs, children who are properly and lawfully brought up, etc.

Furthermore, it brings great insult, a great affront, against the State, who has endowed her and her husband's marital union with legal, public recognition and encouragement.

Marriage is a deeply political institution, and adultery violates and undermines marriage.

It is, perhaps (and here, I speak inquiringly, and not from a view of settled knowledge), not incorrect to view the crimes of adultery and abortion on par with treason. :idunno:

But do note, Kmo, that I didn't even bring up a mere case of adultery. No, I spoke of a woman who brought her lover into her husband's house, let his friends hang out there, and kicked her husband out of the marital bed.

We're not talking about a woman who was incontinent. We're talking about open, brazen displays of vice, of hardened, ingrained wickedness. We're talking about someone who was, at least insofar as her actions can lead us to believe (I don't know what's in her heart), in the words of Plato and Aristotle, "incurably evil."

For the life of me, I can't see how it could possibly be in the interests of the State to permit such a woman to live.

If you don't think the State should permit such a woman to live then why have them allow the husband to beat her, possibly to death? Why not just declare it a capital crime and have the state execute her? You seem to be changing what you think the purpose behind the punishment is.

I think you are too cavalier in calling her 'incurably evil'.

I agree that marriage and the family is an integral part of society and the State has an interest in protecting it. Part of that protection may be laws against adultery. However, I would not agree that it warrants capital punishment. And your proposal about letting the husband beat his wife would only further destroy the marriage instead of doing anything to help.

Prima facie, it seems like what you are saying is contradictory. If you grant the right of the State to punish the woman for her action, and, likewise, admit the desert and just due of the woman to punishment, then you are telling me that it is unjust for the husband to exact what is: 1. objectively just and 2. just for him.

I'm talking about two things. First, what the state allows and declares in law. Second, what Christianity says about how a husband should treat his wife.

I don't know. :idunno:

I wish to note, however, that I'm not speaking qua Christian, nor am I arguing from theological principles. I'm speaking qua reasonable human being.

Well, I would still disagree with your original post in our exchange. In that post you were talking about beating the sense into the wife and if she doesn't get that sense then you can keep beating her until she dies. If your goal is to get the woman to understand the wrongness of her actions and how it's hurting her husband and her marriage then beating her seems like one of the worst things you could do. And if she doesn't die because the husband decides not to take it that far then it seems like a sure way to completely destroy the marriage. Your proposal isn't reasonable to me at all, leaving aside that it's completely against the faith you espouse.

 

[ok doser]

If your goal is to get the woman to understand the wrongness of her actions and how it's hurting her husband and her marriage then beating her seems like one of the worst things you could do.

what is the purpose of using a rod to correct a child?

 

[kmoney]

is one treating their children with respect and charity when they give them correction?

I don't see correction of children and correction of adults as working the same way.

 

[elohiym]

Not all offenses are equal. :idunno:

Have you ever committed a capital offense according to scriptures, Trad? You've been using the Law of Moses to make arguments, so I think it's a fair question to ask if you have committed capital offenses by that standard. Obviously I'm not asking you to incriminate yourself for something illegal according to U.S. laws, so please don't. I'm looking for an acknowledgment that you deserve to die under Mosaic Law (e.g. violating the seventh day sabbath) and deserve to die according to the wages of sin.

 

[ok doser]

I don't see correction of children and correction of adults as working the same way.

that's 'cause you haven't been married to one of them

especially when they're dialed into modern pop-culture that encourages them to be immature

 

[elohiym]

I don't see correction of children and correction of adults as working the same way.

Neither do I.

 

[elohiym]

what is the purpose of using a rod to correct a child?

What is the purpose of a shepherd using a rod to correct a sheep?

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her..."

 

[ok doser]

What is the purpose of a shepherd using a rod to correct a sheep?

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her..."

you don't think a shepherd would use his staff to whack a wayward sheep back into the fold?


God does that all the time when He lets us reap what we sow


but you don't believe in that stuff

 

[Traditio]

If you don't think the State should permit such a woman to live then why have them allow the husband to beat her, possibly to death? Why not just declare it a capital crime and have the state execute her?

I find myself going back and forth on this. There is always the possibility that, in the course of being punched repeatedly in the face, the wife might suddenly have a flash of insight: "Y'know, maybe committing adultery, bringing my lover into my husband's house, kicking my husband out of the marital bed and letting my lover's friends hang out here was a stupid idea."

If she doesn't, and the husband's hand fist subsequently is forced, so to speak, and she ends up braindead and with her face completely caved in, then I don't think that we can deny that she got what she deserved.

On the other hand, it would perhaps not be wrong simply for the State to execute her.

I don't know. I can see the merits of both of these things.

At any rate, the initial point is that the claim was made that it's never just or acceptable to beat one's wife.

My answer is: what about in this case? You may well deny that it's the best way to deal with the situation, but can you deny its justice?

I think you are too cavalier in calling her 'incurably evil'.

Do you think that her actions proceeded from incontinence (a momentary lapse of judgment because she was led astray by her passions) or vice (she deluded herself into thinking that she was actually doing a good thing)?

If the latter, then according to Aristotle and Plato, she was incurably vicious and worthy of death.

I agree that marriage and the family is an integral part of society and the State has an interest in protecting it. Part of that protection may be laws against adultery. However, I would not agree that it warrants capital punishment.

Ever? Or in these particular circumstances? If you say "ever," I'll point to the Law of Moses and ask you why you think that Moses legislated poorly.

And your proposal about letting the husband beat his wife would only further destroy the marriage instead of doing anything to help.

There's always the slim possibility that she might see reason. If not, then if he beats her hard enough, the beating does fix the problem.

I am always amazed when I hear people say that violence doesn't solve problems, that it's never the answer.

I'm talking about two things. First, what the state allows and declares in law. Second, what Christianity says about how a husband should treat his wife.

Is the law just? If the law is just, then there is no conflict with what Christianity says.

Your proposal isn't reasonable to me at all, leaving aside that it's completely against the faith you espouse.

If my proposal is completely against the Catholic faith, then I agree that what I am saying is erroneous. What leads you to believe this?

 

[elohiym]

you don't think a shepherd would use his staff to whack a wayward sheep back into the fold?

Have you seen a farmer beat his livestock?
Do you have an example of the Good Shepherd beating His sheep?

God does that all the time when He lets us reap what we sow

No, God doesn't beat you. Rather, you beat yourself and evil people help.

but you don't believe in that stuff

So does your ex-wife deserve a beating from you or to be executed by the State? Prove you believe in sowing and reaping.

 

[Crucible]

I don't see correction of children and correction of adults as working the same way.

But treating adults as unaccountable children works just fine :think:

 

[elohiym]

But treating adults as unaccountable children works just fine :think:

Until your wife does it to you.

Would you beat her for that?

 

[ok doser]

Have you seen a farmer beat his livestock?

of course

hogs, cows - they have a mind of their own and often have to be persuaded to do what you want

 

[Traditio]

Have you ever committed a capital offense according to scriptures, Trad? You've been using the Law of Moses to make arguments, so I think it's a fair question to ask if you have committed capital offenses by that standard. Obviously I'm not asking you to incriminate yourself for something illegal according to U.S. laws, so please don't. I'm looking for an acknowledgment that you deserve to die under Mosaic Law (e.g. violating the seventh day sabbath) and deserve to die according to the wages of sin.

Elo:

I wish to emphasize that I am not arguing for the strict application of the penalties of the Mosaic Law to the concrete conditions of our society. You are the one who have committed yourself to that claim.

I further wish to emphasize that I did not focus on the case in question simply because she committed adultery. This particular instance of adultery was particularly grievous/outrageous and was accompanied by particularly severe aggravating circumstances.

 

[kmoney]

I find myself going back and forth on this. There is always the possibility that, in the course of being punched repeatedly in the face, the wife might suddenly have a flash of insight: "Y'know, maybe committing adultery, bringing my lover into my husband's house, kicking my husband out of the marital bed and letting my lover's friends hang out here was a stupid idea."

If she doesn't, and the husband's hand fist subsequently is forced, so to speak, and she ends up braindead and with her face completely caved in, then I don't think that we can deny that she got what she deserved.

On the other hand, it would perhaps not be wrong simply for the State to execute her.

I don't know. I can see the merits of both of these things.

At any rate, the initial point is that the claim was made that it's never just or acceptable to beat one's wife.

My answer is: what about in this case? You may well deny that it's the best way to deal with the situation, but can you deny its justice?

First, nothing would be forcing the husband's hand. If he beats her that's his own choice.

Second, yes I deny that any justice is done by beating her, possibly to death.

Do you think that her actions proceeded from incontinence (a momentary lapse of judgment because she was led astray by her passions) or vice (she deluded herself into thinking that she was actually doing a good thing)?

If the latter, then according to Aristotle and Plato, she was incurably vicious and worthy of death.

Your scenario was about ongoing actions so that would exclude a momentary lapse. However, vice isn't incurable. If you doubt that then read about Paul in your bible.

Ever? Or in these particular circumstances? If you say "ever," I'll point to the Law of Moses and ask you why you think that Moses legislated poorly.

I don't have an answer for that right now.

There's always the slim possibility that she might see reason. If not, then if he beats her hard enough, the beating does fix the problem.
I am always amazed when I hear people say that violence doesn't solve problems, that it's never the answer.

Violence can solve some problems. I don't think it's true in this case.

Is the law just? If the law is just, then there is no conflict with what Christianity says.

Just answer this. Do you think that a husband beating his wife is compatible with loving her as Christ loved the church?

If my proposal is completely against the Catholic faith, then I agree that what I am saying is erroneous. What leads you to believe this?

The part where Paul says we should love our wives like Christ loved the church. If you think a husband beating his wife, possibly to death, fits that bill then I'd say you have a pretty warped idea of what Jesus did for us.

 

[kmoney]

But treating adults as unaccountable children works just fine :think:

Who is doing that?

 

[ok doser]

The part where Paul says we should love our wives like Christ loved the church.

did Jesus sacrifice Himself for us so that we may continue in sin?

 

[kmoney]

did Jesus sacrifice Himself for us so that we may continue in sin?

Of course not. You seem to have mistaken my position as saying the husband should let his wife do whatever she wants.

 

[elohiym]

I wish to emphasize that I am not arguing for the strict application of the penalties of the Mosaic Law to the concrete conditions of our society. You are the one who have committed yourself to that claim.

I have not committed myself to that claim. My arguments were to cast doubt on and dispatch your premises. The U.S. Government, ordained by God, can make any laws the People want. Some will violate the moral precepts that were not abrogated. Wife beating violates the moral precepts of Christianity, and it's good the U.S. government doesn't allow it.

I further wish to emphasize that I did not focus on the case in question simply because she committed adultery. This particular instance of adultery was particularly grievous/outrageous and was accompanied by particularly severe aggravating circumstances.

The husband should just leave in that case, not beat the wife. Setting aside the immorality of the act, that two wrongs don't make a right, he would be opening himself up to civil and criminal actions if he strikes her or her adulterer accomplices.

 

[ok doser]

Of course not. You seem to have mistaken my position as saying the husband should let his wife do whatever she wants.

well, i see corporal correction as an acceptable means of correcting wayward behavior, just as with a child