In a way, he embodies the counter-movement of all the cosmic principles we've been discussing up to this point. Indeed, this is the aracunum of counter-inspiration, which, interestingly, is not "expiration." In other words, as we've been saying in so many ways, genuine mysticism, gnosis, and magic come about as a result of the harmonious union of (↑) and (↓), while counter-inspiration would have to be some sort of caricature or counterfeit version of this -- a kind of bad breath, or hellitosis. As vision and inspiration involve tears and sweat, this card introduces us "to the secrets of the electrical fire and the intoxication of counter-inspiration" (MOTT). What? Yes. I didn't want to go there, but a fine example of the electrical intoxication would be the infamous Obama-tingle in Chris Matthews' pasty thigh.
I like this card, because it is also the card of the Mind Parasites. These are the self-generated demons which then have power over those who create them -- which you will no doubt notice represents a kind of pathological cycle of (↑) and (↓); more on which below.
But first, UF makes an extremely important point, that "the world of evil is a chaotic world." Which means, if you wish to create a world in which the Devil has a "free hand," so to speak, you needn't necessarily engage in evil per se. Rather, all you have to do is disrupt the celestial order and sow chaos below. (I actually prefer the word "disorder," since chaos now has a scientific meaning; from the perspective of chaos theory, processes that look chaotic may exhibit extremely deep order, but that's the topic for another post. We'll just stick with "chaos" in its colloquial sense.)
A most obvious example of cosmic order is the distinction between male and female. To blend these categories is not just foolish and unwise, but evil. Or, soon enough, it will lead to evil. I don't want to get sidetracked, but here is a depressing article by Kay Hymowitz on the contemporary state of male-female relations, Love in the Time of Darwinism. The take-away point is that the chaos engendered by feminism and other postmodern idiolatries has hardly been "liberating." Rather, in taking a wrecking ball to the nonlocal celestial hierarchy, it has "ironically" reduced human beings to a state of pure animality in their mating habits. Ladies, be careful what you whine for.
In turn, this is why the homosexual activists clamoring for the redefinition of marriage are promoting evil, pure and simple. One has to be so willfully obtuse to suggest that I am saying that this or that homosexual is evil. That's an entirely different subject. Rather, what I am saying is that I do not want a handful of judges to impose their diabolical values on the rest of us, just because they do not understand that marriage exists as a divine archetype, and that it is not for us to tamper with, any more than it is up to a judge to tamper with the laws of physics. You cannot turn my aunt into a Maserati by judicial Fiat.
One hears other boneheads saying things such as: " duh, gay marriage won't hurt my marriage. What are these conservatives afraid of?" As Dennis Prager always says, we live in the "age of stupidity," and this is about as clear an example as one could imagine. What Prager means is that we live in an age that is devoid of wisdom -- in particular, the accumulated wisdom of the centuries -- which, on a spiritual level, is no less important then the "biological wisdom" embodied in our genes.
And why do we live in an age of stupidity? Because liberals have spent the last fifty years undermining the legitimacy of the divine-human order, and therefore sowing chaos. And once you have chaos, then you have successfully destroyed any standards by which we may objectively guide our lives.
This is what I mean when I try to tell these uncomprehending "integralists" that the left is not the complement of conservative liberalism, but its very negation. A true political complementarity would nevertheless have to share the same first principles, which was more or less the case in America until the 1960s. Today, the problem is not that we differ with the left over this or that policy issue. Rather, they have entirely different first principles, principles which are not rooted in the Constitution, in American tradition, and certainly not in transcendent reality (i.e., the vertical).
So, if you think that article by Hymowitz is depressing, just wait until we've had "homosexual marriage" for a generation or two. When I say that civilization cannot survive the metaphysical chaos this will enshrine, I am not being polemical. I mean it quite literally and dispassionately. This is what happens when human sexuality is reduced to a purely horizontal category.
Even leaving spirituality to the side, the activists express such an astonishing naivete about the power of human sexuality, that it is not even childlike, because children are well aware of such fundamental categories as Father and Mother. Only a leftist could be so stupid as to deny such a primordial reality and call it "progress." As a libertarian, I do not believe it is the business of the state to tell a couple of men or women what sort of erotic partnership they wish to have. Just don't pretend that it is marriage, which it can never, ever be.
Notice that their only possible counter-argument will be a strictly horizontal one, thereby denying the very context of marriage, i.e., the sacred. By the nature of their arguments, one can tell that they have no idea what marriage actually is, in that they see it only in terms of an arbitrary "right" which some people supposedly have but others don't.
Again, it is an entirely horizontal argument. Marriage, like human freedom itself, exists prior to the state. "Homosexual marriage" can only exist if the state imposes a new definition of marriage, thereby destroying it. Yes, yes, Britney Spears or Pamela Anderson also make a mockery of marriage. That is not a counter-argument. Rather, that is the point, idiot.
Anyway, the main point is that if you want to engender evil, all you have to do is promote disorder by denying or blending categories which must remain separate in order for there to be civilization at all. This is why the Creator's very first act is one of separation amidst chaos. Note as well that the homosexual activist will accuse me of being evil because of my deference to the divine order (by which evil is measured to begin with). Is this not diabolical? No, that wasn't a rhetorical question, because while the luciferian is that which opposes the divine reality, the diabolical is that which actively undermines it. Look at how they are attempting to destroy the Boy Scouts for similar reasons.
Back to the card. UF notes that it evokes the idea of slavery, in that it depicts two people "who are attached to the pedestal of a monstrous demon." It suggests "an eminently practical lesson as to how it happens that beings can forfeit their freedom and become slaves of a monstrous entity which makes them degenerate by rendering them similar to it." (If you look closely, you will see that it is actually Mayor Newsom presiding over a gay wedding.)
With regard to these parasitic entities, the analogy with biology is apt, for we know that there are "helpful" and "harmful" bacteria. Some parasites will kill us, while others, for example, live symbiotically in our digestive tract and help us to maintain life. I'm thinking, for example, of the conscience, which opposes us and can at times feel like a parasitic entity that is there to spoil our fun, when its real purpose is to allow for vertical growth -- and to prevent a horizontal death. Recall, for example, how in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is punished by his "parasitic" conscience.
Unfortunately, I'm really running short on time here. I don't want to start into a major area and then have to stop. To be continued....
67 comments:
What about separation of marriage and state? If we're going to be 'libertarian' about it, what specific (horizontal) rights should obtain to a 'marriage', defined specifically as being between a woman and a man? (We'll ignore that it's historically been nonexclusive - polygamy - for now.)
In other words, what would be the differences, if any, from a legal standpoint, between:
a) married couple w/o children
b) married couple w/biological children
c) infertile married couple w/adopted children
d) homosexual couple w/o children
e) homosexual couple w/biological children (e.g., a widow/widower who pairs up with someone of the same gender)
f) homosexual couple w/adopted children (if any)
How about making 'marriage' a purely religious issue, and having a separate legal framework from that? We already have some similar issues - e.g. the secular law allows you to divorce, though you have to go through ecclesiastical authorities to get an annulment.
The devil has moobs.
"...a kind of bad breath, or hellitosis."
I had that once. No mints are gonna cover that up.
On a Saturday two years from now, you may update and re-post this, and have to change "Mayor Newsom" to "Governor Newsom."
One of my customers was a young Asian man who was on Gavin's staff, and in chatting with me, he mentioned that there were plans in place that aimed, not just at Sacramento, but toward Washington.
Oh, and that City Journal article describes people who are as "Darwinian" as the LDS types are Christian.
I mostly subscribe to Bob's post, with a few caveats:
One must guard against becoming too rigid in any regard, even in the defence of "divine order."
Today's spiritual order is not eternal; there must be a wide plasticity in the responses a soul allows; in other words, let the boundaries be established by direct fiat from the Master, and not from the interpereting mind.
It is not inconceivable that a gay yogini might be impelled, as part of her path, to enter into a marriage with her same sex partner. Her psychic being might want this experience. The free being has to be sufficiently plastic to provide ANY experience that is called for, even things that seem paradoxically to run counter to the "divine order."
Bob might be called forth to commit some atrocity tommorrow; one never knows. He would have to obey it if the order was from the Transcendant, philosophy be damned. That is the true order; made up on the spot.
The other observation is that some of our most advanced spiritual leaders predict the total abnegation of sexual reproduction itself, either on Earth or in the hereafter. How's that for preserving the Divine Order? Not so much.
So, there you have it. The Divine order will take care of itself, no doubt. It will change and mutate.
"Ladies, be careful what you whine for."
Or, as Waylon would say: "be careful of somethin' that's just what you want it to be."
Haven't read all the way through yet, but this post I read yesterday seems apropos.
It behooves us to oppose the redefinition of Marriage, which is in archetypical terms the joining of The Two Unlike Things into One Flesh. I think Bob talked about the 'legitimate twoness' before: I.e. Divine Nature and Human Nature, The Male and Female, etc.
The problem is that there is no hard and fast distinction between 'religion' and 'everything else'. When you get to more traditional Christians - and this does not mean LDS or fundamentalists, but devout Catholics and Orthodox - the State emerges as the will of the people, either traditionally as a monarch (single leader) or more modernly as the ruling demos. Thus the state must be reflecting the 'pattern' of the people. When the state turns around and decides to redefine this pattern for the people's 'good' there will always be problems.
The question that needs to be answered in any case is not 'should marriage be a religious issue?' of course it is a religious issue. But religion, or faith, is not something you have in church or in happy devotion times but something that saturates all of one's life. (Paul speaks of praying continuously.)
Bob says he's not writing a polemic, and I agree: The fact that we have to erect laws against homosexual 'marriage' is itself indicative of deep problems. Problems that, by the way, will not be solved by making it illegal to declare homosexual marriages. That would simply stave off the issue for a while. In any case, there are certain areas where the demand for such a thing is so strong, we have literally a cultural divide. So we have one 'demos' that desires everyone to accept its mores, and another 'demos' that finds what it thought were the accepted mores under attack.
The question always seems to be - regarding the Order - what of it represents the nature of the order and what are the accidents? Take for instance traditional Indian culture. Something about Caste represents a transcendent reality, but the implementation of it - rigid generational transmission - was a regrettable accident. You can see that this is the case in a society that 'does not value any occupation above any other' or encourages anti-discretion and is iconoclastic. You end up with lost generations who don't even know they have a caste.
Likewise we want to know 'what is the nature of marriage'? You must successfully argue that the nature of marriage is simply a 'loving pairing' and the sexes of the partners are the accident.
That will prove a difficult argument, I believe, one that requires a great deal of iconoclasty and reductionism.
Therapeutic society: We don't want to make you well, we want to you feel good on the way down.
Anon-
Nuts.
The argument about a gay yogini is of course absurd. We start by supposing an equality between conditions (gay, straight) and then it follows that each must have what the word defines that they need. It's a simple trick. Take the thing you don't want to let go of, like disbelieving in science, and term yourself in a way that makes it seem like it is in your nature to 'not get science at all' thus making it a 'valid perspective' that science is nonsense. As soon as this is tacitly accepted, it is then the task to create 'bubbles' where those who have taken on this identity congregate. Etc.
Nonsciencers demand equal rights! They demand to be taught in ways that make sense to their way of life; the nonscientific one.
Today, the problem is not that we differ with the left over this or that policy issue. Rather, they have entirely different first principles, principles which are not rooted in the Constitution, in American tradition, and certainly not in transcendent reality (i.e., the vertical).
Ho! In fact, I would go as far as to say the Left doesn't even have principles, or, if they do they are relative and subject to change at a moments notice.
Or perhaps really screwed up is another way to say it.
For example, there are those who call themselves social liberals and fiscal conservatives.
Nonsense. You can't be both, because social libs are not fiscally conservative, just as Leftist social commies can't be anarchists at the same time (however, both will try to destroy civilization).
Ben:
That's correct. Ultimately leftists are nihilists, since one can only have real principles to the extent that they are grounded in transcendent reality.
Note as well that the homosexual activist will accuse me of being evil because of my deference to the divine order (by which evil is measured to begin with). Is this not diabolical? No, that wasn't a rhetorical question, because while the luciferian is that which opposes the divine reality, the diabolical is that which actively undermines it.
That is indeed the end result.
Evil. Diabolical.Isn't it the height of hypocrisy as well? These militantthugs gleefully attack Mormons or white Christians but they say nothing or do nothing about black churches or Obama, who opposes gay marriage based on his twisted form of black theology which I refuse to call Christian because it's not.
Do the gay anarchists deny Obama's very words? Then they are once again denying reality.
Bear in mind as well that marriage is a union of essences, whereas for many, if not most, so-called homosexuals, it is simply pathological behavior which is opposed to their essence. We know this because there are plenty of former homosexuals who have successfully changed their orientation, gotten married, and had children. It's no coincidence that if these totolerantarians had their way, they would outlaw conversion therapy.
Speaking of mind parasites, which we create ourselves, can there also be several "types" of mind parasites?
Nihilistic, luciferion, diabolical, excess/addictive, malignant narcissism, etc.?
Do mind parasites, which have their own agendas have a form of conscience? Splitting, maybe?
Can demons affect mind parasites and use them to cause rebellion?
More so than they do on their own?
I'm thinkin' yes, to those last two questions because demons need a vehicle to cause the most chaos or rebellion.
But that's not to say we can't do that to ourselves.
What is the relationship between ego and mind parasites?
Or are mind parasites little ego's?
I hope you cover that sometime, Bob. I like to know or gno my enemies. Mind parasites are cunning 'cause I know they're as smart as I am, but they can't gno Truth or Love, can they? Perhaps that's one of their major weaknesses.
As usual, good stuff at NARTH.
"It's no coincidence that if these totolerantarians had their way, they would outlaw conversion therapy."
So true. CT is a big threat to the efforts of gay activists to legitimize and promote their agenda.
They wanna force acceptance of their pathology and promote it, indoctrinate children, and create more of their own because they aren't born that way. It's the only way to increase their numbers.
>>this card introduces us "to the secrets of the electrical fire and the intoxication of counter-inspiration"<<
I think this intoxication is always a *glamour* of some sort. Glamour has always existed just as the elemental electrical fire has always existed, but with the advent of tech electricity, glamour - ie., the illusion given an extra boost of seductiveness - reaches us through material means, TV, film, propoganda, etc. I think it's really a matter of technology aiding in what is essentially a magical act, albeit one designed to make us see what is not really there.
>>"the world of evil is a chaotic world."<<
The whole idea of chaos may seem like fun to some people in the same way that certain traditional depictions of Hell make the place look like a big scary funhouse. Actually, if you want a taste of what metaphysical chaos is all about, try a nightmare. A nightmare may have a "plot line", but the ambiance, the core of the nightmare is pure, unendurable chaos - that's as scary as it gets.
In some way the tempter is like the guardian angel it doesn't have any 'existence' until existence is given it, like a wound. (But even then it is a negative thing...) And like the wound it can be easily self inflicted, especially if one is not in a particularly dangerous place spiritually but is inattentive. With all wounds, there is an element of one's own will (provided one is not under the command and control of another) to its infliction. Sippican Cottage had a good article about this - about getting cut by the saw blade. Most of how we get cut is not by failing to avoid the cut (though certainly that's the direct cause) but by putting ourselves in the situation where we can easily be lacerated.
The distinction between demons and mind parasites seems kind of unclear, but I think that's fine: It is the action against us and the result of that action that we're concerned with. Since the demon requires our cooperation to harm us, if we will simply harm ourselves he is just as pleased.
And perhaps that's what gives demons their life? Eh, I won't speculate. Spiritual beings are quite beyond my ken.
I mostly subscribe to Bob's post, but will prove how I believe none of it:
One must guard against becoming too rigid in any regard, even in the defence of "divine order." If it feels good, DO IT!
Today's spiritual order is not eternal as any new age integralist will tell you; there must be a wide plasticity in the responses a soul allows; in other words, let the boundaries be established by direct fiat from the Master (Lucifer), and not from the interpereting mind or conscience.
It is not inconceivable that a gay yogini might be impelled by mind parasites, as part of what she thinks as her path, to enter into a marriage with her same sex partner. Her psychic being (collective mind parasites) might want this experience. The free being (i.e. slave) has to be sufficiently plastic to provide ANY experience that is called for, even things that seem paradoxically to run counter to the "divine order", which is what is actually happening, but denial is strong, and slavery, seductive.
Bob might be called forth to commit some atrocity tommorrow; one (I)never knows. If he is enslaved, as I am, he would have to obey it if the order was from the Transcendant (Luciferian New Agey feel good), philosophy be damned. That is the true order; made up on the spot.
The other observation is that some of our most advanced spiritual leaders (Deepok, Oprah, Elton) predict the total abnegation of sexual reproduction itself, either on Earth or in the hereafter. How's that for preserving the Divine Order? Not so much.
So, there you have it. The Divine order will take care of itself, no doubt. It will change and mutate according to what my mind parasites deem appropriate to keep me in denial and sufficiently enslaved.
THE END.
I mean it!
I'm reminded of the gay sheep episode. If gay activists were really about tolerance, why in the world would they be threatened by research that might offer some people a chance to change their orientation, if that's what they want? You often hear people say that they would never choose to be gay - yet if something comes along that might actually give them a choice in the matter, the community doesn't rejoice, it demonizes.
Julie - There are people who also oppose curing deafness, arguing that there's a unique 'deaf culture' that's threatened by such cures.
I think they're equally misguided, even though deafness does often to lead to a different, and fascinating, viewpoint. (See Oliver Sacks' Seeing Voices.)
"There is no cause so noble it will not attract some kooks."
How about making 'marriage' a purely religious issue, and having a separate legal framework from that? We already have some similar issues - e.g. the secular law allows you to divorce, though you have to go through ecclesiastical authorities to get an annulment
The reason that Marriage has the status of legal enshrinement in our nation (and nearly all others) is because people understood these simple and self evident truths:
1) A nation/society/civilization is sustained through the propagation of children.
2) A child is are the product of one man and one woman.
3) The ideal caretakers for children are their biological parents.
Obviously gay marriage contributes nothing to the perpetuation of society nor to its strength., Rather it is a biological dead-end unto itself.
If you think about it, marriage isn't really what the gay activists want. In their arguments they reduce marriage to a mere institutional stamp of approval on a person's love life(be it Church or Government). Herein lies what they are really after - institutional approval and support for homosexuality so that they can use the full weight of the institutions that support them to silence any opposition to their lifestyle.
Gay marriage is a lie. Lies can not stand on their own, they need to be constantly propped up and repeated in order to survive. This is why the anti-prop 8 mobs are resorting to threats and intimidation in order to prevail. We have seen the same thing in totalitarian regimes - people forced to repeat the lies of the tyrannical governments under threat of prison or death.
But the Truth stands alone. It does not prevail either by hook or by crook but rather shines as a light to all who will come. It was there before the lie, and will remain long after the lie has been forgotten.
Ray: That one has always struck me as odd. As though someone else has a say in the matter? I'm sure the politically correct Bible has Jesus not healing anybody because their conditions create a 'unique culture'.
The resurrection of Lazarus will be an interesting story. Hades would be less interesting without him, you see....
Anyway, the main point is that if you want to engender evil, all you have to do is promote disorder by denying or blending categories which must remain separate in order for there to be civilization at all.
Which is why blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites or go to the same schools, and why untouchables can never change caste, and why there must be kings rather than elected rulers
"This is what I mean when I try to tell these uncomprehending "integralists" that the left not the complement of conservative liberalism, but its very negation. "
Sure got that right.
"Today, the problem is not that we differ with the left over this or that policy issue. Rather, they have entirely different first principles, principles which are not rooted in the Constitution, in American tradition, and certainly not in transcendent reality (i.e., the vertical). "
I'd argue that they don't have principles, properly understood, at all. They have positions which serve as motivation for their actions, but that is all. If they had actual principles, there would be NO democrat party, merely a bunch of competing pressure groups.
"A true political complementarity would nevertheless have to share the same first principles, which was more or less the case in America until the 1960s."
Well... they shared similar sentiments up until the 1960's, anyway, but common American Principles rooted in the constitution, and shared by both sides of the aisle, didn't make it much past the gate into the 20th century.
Ray said "What about separation of marriage and state? If we're going to be 'libertarian' about it..."
It's been awhile since I looked into this, but if my RAM Memory serves, you can thank your proregressive darweenie furbears for the issue. Marriage licenses (as opposed to official recordings of marriages, which were little more than documentary), if I remember rightly, didn't exist in the USA, until somewhere between 1830's-60's(?), starting somewhere in the upper mid-west I think. Which means, assuming that I'm right in my dates, George & Martha Washington had no marriage license.
They didn't come into play, until, depending on which side of the counterfeit coin you looked at, either to further the proregressives eugenics concerns, wanting to take legal control of darweenian evolution and ensure the healthy progress of the race by outlawing, or by some other obfuscation, not giving out licenses to 'mixed' marriages of various sorts; or to provide a 'civil marriage', to give non-religious people the appearance of the marriage status which religious people had.
Truth and Reality have a very strong sense of humor and poetic justice.
"So we have one 'demos' that desires everyone to accept its mores, and another 'demos' that finds what it thought were the accepted mores under attack."
-River C.
this is almost a direct echo of
E. Michael Jones's 'two choices' :
"we can strive to make truth conform to our desires or to make our desires conform to truth."
Van, Origin of Species was published in 1859, which would make it quite unlikely as a cause for marriage licenses being instituted in the 1830's. The miscengenation laws hit their height in the 1920's.
I also don't think giving the non-religious a right to marry was exactly a high priority at the time, though I'd be interested in any evidence you have of it.
The benefit marriage provides for sterile or childless couples is social stability. I'm not sure how this would not be the same for same-gendered couples.
cryptlife said "Which is why blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites or go to the same schools, and why untouchables can never change caste, and why there must be kings rather than elected rulers"
Of the two possible views, Vertical or Horizontal, one can overcome that, the other will be unable to even acknowledge it.
The Vertical view which understands the hierarchical nature of Truth, may fail to make correct distinctions among essentials and principles, but the nature of their understanding of truth, means that they will eventually be able to discover their errors. Aristotle made many errors, but it is due in large part to his efforts that those errors could eventually be discovered and resolved.
The Horizontal view, which sees all as just many flat truths, none better or more moral than another, will forcibly discard all higher truths, and have no way whatsoever of (barring glomming onto pre-existing vertical structures they could not themselves conceive of) even discovering themselves to be in error, or suspect that there could be Truth, rather than widespread agreement, at all. Hume made many errors... and no one following in his footsteps, have any way whatsoever of discovering it.
Crypticlife: There might just be a line between order and disorder... hmm, where might that be?
The separation of marriage from the state is pure BS. It is the equivalent of saying that the state will provide no support for contracting including enforcement of contract terms. And that would not be a recipe for social collapse? Okay to support any contract but marriage? What right thinking woman would choose to disable her economic prospects to have children? This no-state in marriage is tiresome libertarian bullcorn.
Marriage and its associated laws is the standard form contract for people who don't want to have a pre-nup.
cryptlife said "Van, Origin of Species was published in 1859, which would make it quite unlikely as a cause for marriage licenses being instituted in the 1830's. The miscengenation laws hit their height in the 1920's."
Crypt, I said 'darweenieian', not Darwinian, there is a big difference. And Rousseau, Hume, Kant, Peirce, who form the core of progressivism, far preceded your timeline, and their purpose has always been to reorder society from the top down, in the way that they thought society and the universe should have been designed.
However... I'll concede the technical point there, 'darweenie' would be a bit anachronistic, I'll have to check the dates.
Aloysius said "This no-state in marriage is tiresome libertarian bullcorn."
There's a difference between state recognition (recording marriages, etc), and state controlling and defining what a marriage is, or helping to arbitrate the civil, economic fallout from disunion and contractual dissolution. With that reasoning, one could just as well say that a parent needs a birth license to make any claims about their children. Some relations and ‘contracts’ do precede the State.
And before popping the bullcorn, keep in mind that there was a time that women didn't have a lot of recourse in any economic contracts, they did exist on shaky economic grounds if not attached to either a parent or a husband.
Not a good thing. Not all reform is a bad thing. Errors do need correcting... just got to make sure that Marriage isn't thrown out with the marriage license … water... so to speak.
Cryptlife: What is it about marriage that creates stability? Here's what you have:
"A pedant had invited his schoolfellows to a banquet where they praised the pig's head and considered it worthy. The next day he arranged a banquet at his house and going to the cook-shop he said, "Give me another head of the pig, for the one yesterday pleased us much.""
Or:
An atheist saw a man and woman, and when he enquired about their relationship, the man said they had been married for forty years and had ten children. His children were statesmen, judges, carpenters, soldiers, and he was greatly enriched because of them. When asked what he would credit this to, he said without hesitation, "My marriage." The next day the atheist went to the courtroom and demanded of the magistrate to grant any two people a marriage. "Why should I do such an absurd thing?" Asked the judge. The atheist replied: "Why, just yesterday I spoke to a man who was greatly enriched by his marriage! Why shouldn't everyone have access to this benefit?"
*rim shot*
River - "An atheist asked River Cocytus why infertile heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry."
Can you provide a good punchline? :->
Same question to aloysius. You misrepresent the notion. It's not that marriage contracts wouldn't be enforced. If it's going to be a contract - which is all it can be, from a legal point of view - the actual question is why can't others enter into similar contracts?
What happens to a marriage when one partner schtups another party on the side?
Is it still a marriage? Now there are three players. Even if kept secret, God knows of the arrangment.
A marriage can be two people, but often there are three or more involved. How does that fit in with archetypes/definitions?
Undoubtedly people have been forming triangles forever. They therefore must be sanctioned in some fashion by the Boss or they wouldn't persist.
I don't think people know what marriage is. That's why any discussion of it devolves into chaos.
Marriage revolves around sex, but sex gets messy/blurry/tweaked into so many fantastical forms that to identify any one as "the divine order" needs some justification beyond "it just seems like it should be that way."
I mean really, WTF do we know? People will schtup anything. Someone should ask God directly, what gives down here? It's a freakin' madhouse.
Ray: Same punchline!
When I think of my host of mind parasites as little nuisances, and oh, they're not really that bad, I need to whip out this card and ponder it for 5 seconds.
Like daily. Oh hell, hourly.
Here, just for Ray:
An atheist was walking with a priest, and came upon a man and his wife. "Do you know them?" asked the atheist. The priest affirmed and noted, "they've been married forty years. And though they never had children, they are a pillar of our community." When he asked why he thought that was, the priest replied, "It is without a doubt a result of their marriage." The next day the atheist went to the magistrate and demanded he grant a marriage to any two people. The judge replied, "Why should I do such an absurd thing?" The atheist replied, "Well, just yesterday, I met a man whose community benefited immensely from his marriage. Why shouldn't everyone have access to that?"
etc. You can ask for another and I'll deliver.
Ray said “If it's going to be a contract - which is all it can be, from a legal point of view - the actual question is why can't others enter into similar contracts?”
Ray, from a legal point of view, why can’t you propose a non-renewable 4yr lease contract by advertising it as a month-to-month rental agreement?
Because that is not what it is. Although superficially, they are kinda similar, each involves transferring possession of property, each involves monthly payments, but the points of difference are biggee’s.
The previous name ‘Marriage’ pre-exists the civil ‘marriage’ contract, it has precedent, you can write your civil contract however you prefer, you can even substitute a generic civil agreement and call it “Marriage” (kinda like generic “Asprin”), so long as it follows the pre-existing definition of a Man and a Women… but if you want a completely different product, you gotta come up with your own name, if for no other reason, than for false advertising and devaluing a pre-existing product line.
Ok, tongue was definitely in cheek there, but the nature of the issue is similar. You want some kinda civil union? Here’s an idea, call it a civil union. Call it a ‘Soulmate partnership’, call it ‘George’, whatever, just don’t sully the pre-existing brand name by calling it Marriage.
JP, got any legalese on this?
It is so bizarre that this is even open for discussion.
Speaking of demons, sometimes it's best to mock them...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaJLbJDuAc
Re secular licenses: follow the money.
As soon as some genius figured out that regular, never-ending ability to collect fees was involved, licenses became manditory for everyone. It's called revenue enhancement.
Thanks fra. William of Ockham, say, how'd you lose all those fingertips?
“…just wait until we've had "homosexual marriage" for a generation or two. When I say that civilization cannot survive the metaphysical chaos this will enshrine, I am not being polemical. I mean it quite literally and dispassionately. This is what happens when human sexuality is reduced to a purely horizontal category.”
Being that our civilization is Judeo-Christian based, our definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is biblically based. In that same Bible, God makes it painfully clear what He thinks of deviations from that order. Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind (Gen 18 & 19) - to mention just one form of deviation.
As a reflection of God's own nature, marriage is best when focused outward (for God’s glory) rather than centered inward (for our comfort). A high calling, I know, but there it is.
Hey, I know, let's just redefine anything we want.
Oh wait, the Left already does that. No wonder they are incoherent.
Let's sue gay activists for using "hate speech". We have a right not to be offended.
Privateers are a persecuted minority!
Privateering is a tough business.
No one is hiring.
We need bailed out or we will lose our jobs and the stock market will fall.
It's really in everyone's best interest.
Enjoy! - thanks, I did. That's more Olberman than I've seen, well, ever. I'm just glad he was saying "Sir" and not "Madam." :)
Happy Gene Clark's Birthday!
-fellow Kansas City Southern Boy GE
[our hometown; my family was pals w/ the owners of said RailRoad]
"(I actually prefer the word "disorder," since chaos now has a scientific meaning; from the perspective of chaos theory, processes that look chaotic may exhibit extremely deep order, but that's the topic for another post. We'll just stick with "chaos" in its colloquial sense.)"
When I see 'chaos' and disorder, I look for disintegration, or misintegration. Usually you'll find a case of equivocation involved as well, such as with Marriage; leaving aside the Vertical aspect (actually this is the method for leaving aside the Vertical aspect, but that also is a separate post),
- Misintegration would be such as attempting to redefine a proper Marriage based upon non-essential attributes (hmm wonder if this would be possible if Aristotle were still taught? I'm betting... No) as 'a loving partnership between two consenting adults', rather than a 'union of man and women for life'.
- Disintegration would be attempting to redefine a proper intimate relationship away from Marriage, and instead as being any co-habitation between a between man and women for as long as it feels good, based upon non-essential attributes (yeah... still no Aristotle... ) such as 'a mutually supportive relationship', rather than 'union of man and women for life'.
Both work to destroy the fact of not only Marriage, but of all intimate relationships between men and women, women & men, men & men, women & women, family, and the final aim of society itself. As one small example of the wider effect, in the 16th & 17th centuries it was very common for one man to speak of his love for another, in the assurance that it would be understood to refer to it's highest and purest meaning, and would never be interpreted in a sexual context. With our 'liberated' times, that is nearly impossible, and we are usually left with a nod and a punch in the arm, and relationships and a culture that much more impoverished.
Or of course, try singing "...now we don our gay apparel..." without an abundance of acidic winks and grins.
Without clear customs, definitions and boundaries, hierarchy is brought lower and all understanding is diminished.
The insistence among leftist judges that they define what marriage is is similar to the "official" Christian church in China, in which the state defines what it means to be a Christian.
This is one indication of the new dispensation we are living under. Marriage as an immemorial tradition obviously predates the state. And there isn't even a legal issue here.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman by definition. It is beyond absurd for a court to decide that it has the power to change the definition. You can call your cat a dog, but it isn't going to bark or fetch your slippers.
Over the last forty years we have been changed from citizens into subjects.
Stories in the MSM about gangs of homosexuals invading, desecrating and vandalizing churches and church property are treated as civil rights demonstrations and completely legitimate.
This is another straw in the wind; does anyone doubt which way the wind is blowing?
Let's say I get a hankerin' after my sister and go get myself a visacktommy. Can me and her get us a marriage license?
Why shore , Slim. Hell, these days enny two fags kin git therselves hitched, so why's not you'n yer sis? But ya probly got to go to maschewsits or canada to git 'er done.
Going back to this:
"The take-away point is that the chaos engendered by feminism and other postmodern idiolatries has hardly been "liberating." Rather, in taking a wrecking ball to the nonlocal celestial hierarchy, it has "ironically" reduced human beings to a state of pure animality in their mating habits. Ladies, be careful what you whine for."
Here's another post that seems apropos (strong, or rather descriptive language warning, for the easily offended)
Dangit, where'd my link go?
Here, again.
"On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not."
OMG
How Obama Got Elected
Funny, everyone seems to want to talk in generalities. 58 comments so far and not one with a specific answer to the specific questions that were asked in the very first comment.
From a purely legal standpoint, 'marriage' offers things like medical visitation, durable power of attorney, immunity from being compelled to testify against one's spouse, holding property as tenants by the entirety, family leave benefits, and so forth.
Let's assume that we don't call it 'marriage' we just have 'civil unions', as Van prefers. Fine. What would be the legal differences, if any, between 'marriages' and 'civil unions'? Would one have rights the other wouldn't?
Ximeze,
Good video link, thanks, I don't think I've been this depressed in... decades. I'm going back to sleep now... why should everyone else get to sleep my life away but me?
(yeah, yeah, I know, but... sheesh)
Ray said "...not one with a specific answer to the specific questions that were asked in the very first comment."
That was, specifically because they weren't worth responding to.
"From a purely legal standpoint, 'marriage' offers things like medical visitati..."
Ray, first, with the exception of property and testimony (which are very much implied by the original understanding of Marriage "one flesh..." etc), Marriage itself doesn't offer those 'benefits'. Regulatory agencies, bureaucratic policies and quasi-gov't org's, have however recognized that due to the unique partnership that is marriage, it is logical to extend such benefits to a persons spouse. But they have nothing to do with Marriage itself, only its implications.
If you want to a new legal partnership, that will command all of the same 'benefits' (wow, isn't that a good horizontal reason for getting hitched?! Wuv at first bite!) you get to define it however the hell you want to. And what you demonstrate, specifically, is that you don't want to extend Marriage to homosexuals, you want to give them a convenient way to get the same goodies that married people enjoy, and do it without having to define your own terms first - nothing leftist about that.
Run for congress on that platform Ray, as Ximeze's video points out, there are plenty of people who'll vote for you.
Van - Okay, so as long as it's not called marriage, you've got no problem with 'civil unions' or whatever? It's just the name that holds the power, right?
Is self satisfaction worth the price of ignorance?
Ray said " Okay, so as long as it's not called marriage, you've got no problem with 'civil unions' or whatever?"
I've got a problem with it, it creeps me out big time... but I don't have the right to prevent others from entering (ahem) into it.
"It's just the name that holds the power, right?""
Ray, respectfully, peddle your crap elsewhere. The word, the concept "Marriage" means something, misusing it, especially in a legal manner, abuses and damages that meaning. If you can't grasp that, go somewhere and thumb through your Hume and Wittgenstein to your heart’s content, preferably in private, where you won't sicken people who can see what it is you are doing.
(Deleted, had part of previous comment on bottom)
Van, you'd be surprised how many of my questions are rhetorical. Of course, since it's impossible that I could have any depth, they must therefore not be, right?
Ray, I’d be much more surprised to see you ask an intelligent question, one that actually sought an answer and pre-supposed a depth of truth which it could potentially be answered from.
You aren’t ever going to surprise me in that way, are you Ray?
Don’t bother, it’s a rhetorical question.
Still, I shouldn’t get too upset, after all who’s the bigger fool, the fool who behaves foolishly, or the one who continues to ask him why?
Yeah, that’s a rhetorical question too.
Post a Comment