I hope you will cover polygamous marriage in more detail. This is not merely an hypothetical as such has existed on a relatively large scale in America-among the LDS. It was not only prohibited but the founder was lynched. The sect migrated to the wilds of Utah but the government followed them with a new wave of prohibitions. A smaller group then moved to Mexico. We may be repeating history since Islam also recognizes such marriages but the media won't talk about that. Both groups most definitely produce children.
You evade the difference between govt and private marriage. Govt should have no power to marry or divorce, except as they are enforceable contracts. End of part of the problem. Privately, people can contract for anything that respects rights. If somebody wants to "marry" a a squirrel, dont tell me. The word or concept, "marry" may be a problem but govt, which people may use to register a marriage,for public notice, may have a problem with the word or concept, marriage. I presume that lawyers and courts demand verry precise categories for contracts. Thus govt or a private agency may refuse same-sex "marriage,' as a name for a contract and demand a differrent name. I believe this has already been studied as weakening the contractual nature of man/woman marriage.
Thanks for your comment. I hope you'll allow me to finish the series before you accuse me of evasion. I plan to publish a couple of essays on the proper relationship between marriage and government that you might think little different from your view.
Two distinctly different aspects of life yield an interesting illustration.
I’ve been fascinated with the vegetarian obsession with creating foods that taste just like or even look like meat. If you’ve rejected eating an entire category of edible commodity, why are you driven to simulate eating it?
We were exposed to published photos of an unsuccessful candidate for president outfitted in a harness of sorts enabling him to simulate breast feeding an infant he and his partner (wife?, husband?) had adopted.
Both of these simulations are unspoken recognition that one has willfully chosen to defy the natural order of things and resorted to imitating that which has been rejected.
As a Christian the origins of this are clear to me and illustrate the human capacity to refuse their created order and simulate it by imagined artifice. We are all cursed with our own knowledge of good and evil. Our creator provides the way to follow His definition but unredeemed mankind persists in coming up with their own definitions. Tofu steak and strap on bottles are silly substitutes for reality.
I hope you will cover polygamous marriage in more detail. This is not merely an hypothetical as such has existed on a relatively large scale in America-among the LDS. It was not only prohibited but the founder was lynched. The sect migrated to the wilds of Utah but the government followed them with a new wave of prohibitions. A smaller group then moved to Mexico. We may be repeating history since Islam also recognizes such marriages but the media won't talk about that. Both groups most definitely produce children.
You evade the difference between govt and private marriage. Govt should have no power to marry or divorce, except as they are enforceable contracts. End of part of the problem. Privately, people can contract for anything that respects rights. If somebody wants to "marry" a a squirrel, dont tell me. The word or concept, "marry" may be a problem but govt, which people may use to register a marriage,for public notice, may have a problem with the word or concept, marriage. I presume that lawyers and courts demand verry precise categories for contracts. Thus govt or a private agency may refuse same-sex "marriage,' as a name for a contract and demand a differrent name. I believe this has already been studied as weakening the contractual nature of man/woman marriage.
Thanks for your comment. I hope you'll allow me to finish the series before you accuse me of evasion. I plan to publish a couple of essays on the proper relationship between marriage and government that you might think little different from your view.
>I hope you'll allow to finish the series before you accuse me of evasion.
Agreed, knowledge is contextual.
Two distinctly different aspects of life yield an interesting illustration.
I’ve been fascinated with the vegetarian obsession with creating foods that taste just like or even look like meat. If you’ve rejected eating an entire category of edible commodity, why are you driven to simulate eating it?
We were exposed to published photos of an unsuccessful candidate for president outfitted in a harness of sorts enabling him to simulate breast feeding an infant he and his partner (wife?, husband?) had adopted.
Both of these simulations are unspoken recognition that one has willfully chosen to defy the natural order of things and resorted to imitating that which has been rejected.
As a Christian the origins of this are clear to me and illustrate the human capacity to refuse their created order and simulate it by imagined artifice. We are all cursed with our own knowledge of good and evil. Our creator provides the way to follow His definition but unredeemed mankind persists in coming up with their own definitions. Tofu steak and strap on bottles are silly substitutes for reality.
> defy the natural order of things....As a Christian
The contradiction, the dishonesty, is breath-taking. Christianity, as perhaps all religion,is a fundamental hatred of nature.
I cannot disagree with you more fully. I mean and can well defend my statement.
Agreed, in the unfocused mind of mystics.