Marriage: The State Vs. Contract and Religion

Comments

Suverans2's picture

One more time.

Conjunctio mariti et faeminae est de jure naturae. The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature.

Unless, of course you choose to be, or remain, a member of a political corporation, (either out of fear, or to be eligible for its entitlements, the latter being the most common reason), and then you must conform to its "law" on 'marriage', in order to get the entitlements associated with 'marriage'. For those with even a modicum of common sense, this should be easy to understand. gfywi

Consensus non concubitus facit nuptiam. Consent, not lying together, constitutes marriage.

WhiteIndian's picture

You're a member of that political corporation, and you conform to many of its rules. Any dispassionate observer would note how much you submit to it; to say you don't is pure evasion.

Go ahead, disprove me wrong by openly growing and selling marijuana or raw milk off your front porch. Let me know how quoting Black's Law Dictionary works for you when the cops show up.

Like Bob Black* says, "believing you are invulnerable to bullets puts you in more, not less, danger of being shot."

But thanks for your lesson in Latin Legal Liturgy. It's another common behavior of those gyrating to the White Man's Ghost Dance.

____________________________
*"CONSTITUTIONALISM": THE WHITE MAN'S GHOST DANCE
by Robert C. Black
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/black/sp001650.html

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

I believe that Suverans2's statement is an indication NOT of his reverence for the oppression of ancient Rome, which was the evil empire of its day and the destroyer of and parasite upon Mediterranean civilization and trade. It is, instead, a reiteration that marriages are things undertaken in nature by consenting beings BEFORE the existence of the state -- or so I hope. That the evil and barbarous Romans recognized this in the statement above (despite fencing it in everywhere else as our own evil government does) does not, I hope, indicate any reverence for the evil Roman state.

WhiteIndian's picture

I agree; I was just dinging him on his White Man's Ghost Dance, today including Latin, that somehow insulated him from city-Statist society and protects him from cop bullets.

He's a part of the present agricultural city-Statism (civilization) society whether he wants to be or not. Civilization isn't much of a voluntary society; never has been, never will be.

I sympathize with his plight, and I know it drives many people crazy, but crazy delusional thinking does get you killed.

You and me, we're in this thing together now...
We're In This Together - NIN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9BfvPjsXXw

We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine. And the machine is bleeding to death.
The Dead Flag Blues - Godspeed You! Black Emperor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS2BrxcWWZA

Suverans2's picture

That is correct, Lawrence M. Ludlow, "marriages are things undertaken in nature by consenting beings", LONG BEFORE the existence of states. As you, and most people here probably know, I have no 'reverence' of any states.

The only "just powers" of de jure (rightful) governments, (or whatever one wishes to call such an entity), is to protect its consenting members' natural rights. Same-sex marriage is unnatural.

Quick definitions from WordNet (unnatural) ▸ adjective: not in accordance with or determined by nature; contrary to nature

With no intention of being judgmental, or offending anyone here, "same-sex marriage" is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of man, just as the union of two nuts, or the union of two bolts, is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of nuts and bolts", while "different-sex marriage", is, logically, in harmony with the nature of man, just as the union of a nut and bolt is, logically, in harmony with the nature of nuts and bolts.

So,what is the main reason that individuals would vote to have their unnatural same-sex marriage "legally recognized"?

You got it, so the unnatural STATE will give them the same entitlements attached to natural different-sex marriages.

WhiteIndian's picture

Do you find anything natural about a city? Artificial sweeteners? Artificial insemination? (Is it ok to drink milk from cows, 99% of whom are artificially inseminated?) Symbolic thinking? Pseudoephedrine?

This Natural Law stuff intrigues me.

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Excellent points, WI. And what is "natural" about starting a fire that was not instigated by a lightning strike? I hope Suverans2 simply cries "uncle" and gives up on this instead of going off to his dictionary again to depart from the stream of the argument by burying us in minutia.

WhiteIndian's picture

Natural is a slippery word, and mostly used to justify things that most people don't think of as natural.

I like Ran Prieur's definition of "natural," * as follows:

Lies of Civilization #3. Everything is natural. Happily most people recognize this as a silly pseudo-philosophical distraction, but I want to knock it down anyway. The argument rests on a semantic distortion, a redefinition of "natural" to include absolutely everything, because I say so. Civilization is natural because humans are animals, toxic waste is natural because it's derived from stuff that comes from the Earth, bla bla bla.

Real people do not use the word "natural" in this way. Maybe it's "natural" if I take this club and bash your head in, but you would prefer that I didn't, so you define words like "murder" to express and defend this preference. In the same way, people define "natural" to express and defend their preference for living trees over plastic trees, meadows over parking lots, rivers of drinkable water over rivers of dioxin. This is what "natural" really means, and if we don't want to die of cancer and turn the Earth into a poisoned desert, we have a responsibility to linguistically separate the natural from the unnatural and choose the natural many times a day.

If you want a tight definition, natural means in symbiosis with nature, and nature means the totality of symbiotic life on Earth, and symbiotic means related in ways that are mutually beneficial and beneficial to the whole, where wider benefit takes precedence. Defining "beneficial" pushes the limits of our impoverished language, but I'm going to say generating autonomous and diverse aliveness. And if you don't know what aliveness means, look harder.

Regarding Suverans2, I don't think homosexuality is any any less natural than living in cities, working "Jobs," quoting law dictionaries in speech, or most of how we live and behave nowadays in our "plastic fantastic" ** city-Statism (civilization.) I do think crowding increases sexual deviancy (not that there's anything wrong with that,) as I alluded to below in another comment.

___________________
* Ran Prieur (2003) Seven Lies About Civilization http://ranprieur.com/essays/7lies.html

** Timothy Leary (1994) Chaos & Cyber Culture, Ronin Publishing.

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Suverans2: I think you are nearly entirely in error is saying same-sex marriage is contrary to nature. It is only contrary to nature if you think that reproduction is the only consideration. Since reproduction need not be included as a defining element of humans -- after all we are much richer beings than being mere breeders -- your response limits its purview to only the most limited aspect of human beings. Further, in other primates, same-sex matings are often perceived as play acting of cross-sex relationships. Further, they are entirely commonplace.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow,

I realize that this is a touchy subject, not in any small part, because so much government brainwashing, from a very early age, has gone into making everyone believe that homosexuality is just an “alternate lifestyle”, rather than nature's response to overpopulation.

You wrote: Suverans2: I think you are nearly entirely in error is saying same-sex marriage is contrary to nature. It is only contrary to nature if you think that reproduction is the only consideration. Since reproduction need not be included as a defining element of humans -- after all we are much richer beings than being mere breeders -- your response limits its purview to only the most limited aspect of human beings. Further, in other primates, same-sex matings are often perceived as play acting of cross-sex relationships. Further, they are entirely commonplace.

You evidently believe that same-sex marriage is the natural order of things. So be it, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Your use of the word “matingsseems to have been used to infer that these are permanent or semi-permanent unions, over and above same-sex copulations, for “play acting of cross-sex relationships”, or merely for pleasure, by these “other primates”.

Furthermore, humans mating [copulating] with animals is “entirely [too] commonplace”, as well, so does that, in your opinion, make bestiality logically in harmony with [the] nature [of man], too?

WhiteIndian's picture

Do you find anything natural about skyscrapers? Splenda? Artificial intelligence? Law dictionaries?

This Natural Law stuff intrigues me.

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Suverans2: You don't appear to have addressed my points. Further, I cannot imagine what would possess a person to try to apply the labels "natural" and "unnatural" to something like this. I mean, really: do you presume to know the "mind" of Nature? And why do we anthropomorphize Nature and transform her into a being with some purpose. This is all very Hegelian and rather strange.

WhiteIndian's picture

"Crowding" isn't natural. Neither is "hierarchy" or "sexual deviance" in humans and many other animals.

We're well on our way.

__________
“The one thing they did not have was space...He allowed the population to grow to 80 in the first instance.”

As the scientist observed, a social hierarchy developed: One despot male and 9 females claimed the two defensible pens with only one ramp provided; 60 others crowded into the other 2 pens with two ramps. Calhoun found that “rodent utopia” rapidly became “hell.”

He described the onset of several pathologies: violence and aggression, with rats in the crowded pen “going berserk, attacking females, juveniles and less-active males.” There was also “sexual deviance.” Rats became hypersexual, pursuing females relentlessly even when not in heat.

The mortality rate among females was extremely high. A large proportion of the population became bisexual, then increasingly homosexual, and finally asexual. There was a breakdown in maternal behavior. Mothers stopped caring for their young, stopped building a nest for them and even began to attack them, resulting in a 96 percent mortality rate in the two crowded pens. Calhoun coined a term—“behavioral sink”—to describe the decay.

excerpt from:
Plumbing the ‘Behavioral Sink’
Medical Historian Examines NIMH Experiments in Crowding
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm

Suverans2's picture

G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow:

I apologize for apparently not addressing your points.

And, I can't imagine not applying the labels "natural" and "unnatural" to "something like this".

I don't presume that nature even has a "mind", let alone knowing it. Thus, I would have to ask, why on Earth did you say "we anthropomorphize Nature"? Unless you are calling this statement of mine, "...nature's response to overpopulation", attributing human shape or characteristics to nature. If so, I apologize for the miscommunication, because that was certainly not my intent.

I was alluding to a study, many years back, concerning rats in a grain silo. While the silo was full the rats acted "naturally", i.e. peacefully, heterosexually, etc.--the way rats "normally" act towards one another--except for hyper-reproduction, because of an overabundance of food.

As they began taking grain out of the silo the rats began murdering each other and homosexuality became prevalent. The rats, I would venture, didn't hold a meeting and decide to change their behavior; it was, rather, "nature's response to overpopulation".

And, just for the record, I have neither fear of, nor hatred for, homosexuals.

Someone here has advised me to just let "sleeping dogs lie", and so this may be my last comment on this subject.