ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

No vows to a nonexistent God

Oklahoma quite sensibly bans atheist marriages:
A bill that would restrict the right to marry to people of faith and require all marriage licenses to be approved by a member of clergy was approved by the Oklahoma state House on Tuuesday.

House Bill 1125, which would effectively ban all secular marriages in the state, was passed by a Republican majority and will now go to the state Senate for consideration.

"Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage," said one of the bill's Republican supporters Rep. Dennis Johnson, though marriage is a legal contract.
You cannot legitimately take a vow before a God in whom you don't believe. Whether it succeeds or fails, this vote is good news; it is long past time that American traditionalists and conservatives stop trying to be reasonable with the progressives. They should be relentlessly opposed on all fronts, with measures both symbolic and practical, and excluded from the civilization on which they are nothing but parasites. If they want to go elsewhere to set up another of their failed utopias, good luck to them, but there is no place in Western civilization for them. They know this, which is why they keep trying to destroy it.

Marriage existed before the U.S. government. It will exist after the U.S. government collapses. If the government wants to offer legal contracts to which two or more parties want to subscribe, that's fine, but never forget that neither state nor federal government ever had anything to do with creating marriage. And ideally, they would have nothing to say about it at all.

Labels: ,

261 Comments:

1 – 200 of 261 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 8:04 AM  

Alabama and Oklahoma are demonstrating what I've long said. The battle is far from over. The fact that one side hasn't been fighting... does not mean that it cannot fight.

The battle is changing. The Right is moving beyond its red lined defensive position around gun control and taking shots.

it seems we see more and more evidence of this culture war escalation ever month.

Blogger Hermit March 18, 2015 8:07 AM  

This is actually brilliant.
Abolishing civil marriage and replacing it with some non-marriage contract and restrict marriage to religion.
It would also make the leftists show their true face: will be evident that they do not truly want to extend rights to homosexuals but only to make a parody of marriage to destroy it.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother March 18, 2015 8:09 AM  

Homosexuals quoted in the article say this is an all out attack on LGBT people in Oklahoma. Seems to me they're mad that their government supplied crowbar to crack open marriage has just been removed.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 8:10 AM  

This will not be good enough for the gays. Remember... they couldn't care less about actual marriage. What they want... what they demand... is their super ssssssssspecial wedding celebration.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 8:11 AM  

we should take this one step further and refuse to allow atheists to testify in court.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother March 18, 2015 8:11 AM  

SAY YES TO THE DRESS

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 8:14 AM  

If the government wants to offer legal contracts to which two or more parties want to subscribe, that's fine,

This needs to be made clear. And the news media won't help.

4-G warfare, you have to win the moral battle. This is going to look like a dick move to most people unless the alternate is readily available and clearly articulated. If they stop short of this, they lose the battle despite a clever ploy.

Anonymous Salt March 18, 2015 8:16 AM  

That's right, Nate. The bully gets away with it for a while, thinking he's won as he's not so challenged. Then comes the day. Reminds me of the youtube where the bully finally gets his as he's picked up and body-slammed on the concrete.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 18, 2015 8:16 AM  

What endless PC nonsense. This story does not exist, there is no such reason for anyone to want the state to acknowledge their vows or commitments. does this mean I finally start marrying my dad (ship mom to Mars, uncle, my shoe collection, ps3 and a host of rich friends? Cuz you know, we like just want the money, tax write offs, healthcare, freebies, no love, no kids, no God, no future. Just servicing my greed!

Whatever side show works for the media; 'gay mar' or police shootings. Nothing of open border invaderz who in 2 short generations will hang all homosexuals from their purple tresses (not trees), the pink hand cannot escape open borders. Forcing alternate marriages into coffin buildings otherwise known as post americant churches will fail in some areas but flourish. Last time we checked Muslims dont care for homosexuality much less gay marriage. Then again (#2, 3, lost count) dancing boys, child sex slave rings are more popular than gays. Coming out is dangerous and what liberal churches are doing are pro-terrorism, they are invoking islamic terror in post american churches

Blogger James Dixon March 18, 2015 8:19 AM  

> The battle is changing. The Right is moving beyond its red lined defensive position around gun control and taking shots.

That it is. From http://benswann.com/west-virginia-legislature-overwhelmingly-approves-constitutional-carry/

"Last week, two gun rights bills prevailed in the West Virginia Legislature and are now on their way to Governor Tomlin’s desk. SB 347, a constitutional carry bill that would legalize the concealed carry of a handgun without a permit for all individuals in the state age 21 and up who are legally allowed to own firearms..."

Anonymous Salt March 18, 2015 8:22 AM  

we should take this one step further and refuse to allow atheists to testify in court

That's been taken care of for some time, use of affirmation and not swearing. In some respects I agree with that, as we are told not to swear to anything as the truth is not in us. Better to affirm to our testimony than to swear to it.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 8:24 AM  

"4-G warfare, you have to win the moral battle. This is going to look like a dick move to most people unless the alternate is readily available and clearly articulated."

The headline of the article supports your position on the media well. Note that it doesn't say "oklahoma getting out of marriage" .. it says. "oklahoma banning atheists from marrying!!!!"

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 8:25 AM  

' In some respects I agree with that, as we are told not to swear to anything as the truth is not in us."

Its funny to me that the same people who will argue against swearing to tell the truth... will stand up and say the Pledge without so much as batting an eye.

Anonymous PA March 18, 2015 8:27 AM  

-- "...it is long past time that American traditionalists and conservatives stop trying to be reasonable with the progressives"

That's key.

Progs have won on nearly every front since 1954 because Americans tried to be reasonable with them, resulting in incremental losses that have resulted in... Modern Murka.

The reason traditionalists tried to be reasonable is because progs have controlled the narrative and thus, practical definitions of morality.

Progs no longer control the narrative.

Anonymous zen0 March 18, 2015 8:31 AM  

@ Dr. Torch

If they stop short of this, they lose the battle despite a clever ploy.

Exactly. If they do not control the narrative and the language, it will just be portrayed as a scorched-earth, take my ball and go home story.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 8:33 AM  

"Exactly. If they do not control the narrative and the language, it will just be portrayed as a scorched-earth, take my ball and go home story."

it will.

What you're missing is... it doesn't matter. The narative doesn't matter either. The narative is just a tool for liberals to silence you.

Ignore them.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 8:44 AM  

"Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage . . . "

Wise as serpents, innocent as doves. Nice play.

+1

Blogger Salt March 18, 2015 8:48 AM  

Rahm Emanuel Needs Republican Help It's turning on the progs. Be interesting to see if the Rs play ball.

Anonymous The Great Martini March 18, 2015 8:51 AM  

The Achilles heal of this type of strategy lies in the final sentence "though marriage is a legal contract," so its defeat was laid decades or perhaps centuries ago with the incursion of marital status into civil laws of government. That would have been the time to keep government out of marriage, if anyone was interested. These days, you're a day late and a dollar short.

Anonymous zen0 March 18, 2015 8:53 AM  

> Ignore them.

I am willing to learn. Lets wait and see.

If you control the language, you control the argument. – Big Brother, 1984.

Anonymous Anonymous March 18, 2015 8:55 AM  

Is diversity of religion that different that diversity of culture? Religion and culture are commingled and have the same effects on society and behavior.

I always felt that freedom of religion in the US was really a truce between various factions of Christianity and that it would become problematic when other religions or ideologies arrived that had different values and goals.

- Durendal

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 8:56 AM  

4-G warfare, you have to win the moral battle. This is going to look like a dick move to most people unless the alternate is readily available and clearly articulated. If they stop short of this, they lose the battle despite a clever ploy.

You don't understand 4GW. You don't even know what the moral battle means. The fact that you talk about it "looking like a dick move to most people" shows you're locked into the mindset that has been on the retreat for 40 years.

Do you think ISIS gives a quantum of a fuck that beheading people and burning them alive "looks like a dick move"? The moral level of battle first and foremost requires convincing your own side that the battle is GOING TO BE FOUGHT. You can't even begin to think about the neutrals until you've won over your own base.

Anonymous zen0 March 18, 2015 8:57 AM  

@ Great Martini

> That would have been the time to keep government out of marriage, if anyone was interested

As one can apply this to any event in history, it becomes irrelevant.

Anonymous Wake me up when the shooting starts March 18, 2015 8:57 AM  

The Culture War is already lost. I suspect our cultural masters will turn this situation around, and the Christians in Oklahoma will soon have their faces rubbed in dogshit.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 8:59 AM  

I wonder if the problem here isn't the difference between moral and morale. 4GW is about morale. Moral has nothing to do with it.

What matters is keeping your own troops motivated and in the fight.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey March 18, 2015 9:00 AM  

Ah, government *can* do some good after all...!

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 9:01 AM  

"The Culture War is already lost. I suspect our cultural masters will turn this situation around, and the Christians in Oklahoma will soon have their faces rubbed in dogshit."

Why would we bother waking you up? the first sign of adversity in the shooting war you'll just tell us the war is lost and give up and go home.

Git to fightin' or git away.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 9:02 AM  

"If you control the language, you control the argument. – Big Brother, 1984."

ISIS doesn't give a fuck what language you use. Neither did the Viet Cong. And the Afghans have never cared either.

Anonymous Anonymous March 18, 2015 9:03 AM  

@ Nate - it's both is it not? Morale for the troops and moral high ground for the supporting civilians.

- Durendal

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 9:07 AM  

"@ Nate - it's both is it not? Morale for the troops and moral high ground for the supporting civilians."

I don't think its both at all. civilians are like band wagon fans. they follow the strong horse.

Anonymous zen0 March 18, 2015 9:09 AM  

The moral level of battle first and foremost requires convincing your own side that the battle is GOING TO BE FOUGHT.

As you can see, that will be a hard sell. The Oklahoma State House better be absolutely committed. Any wavering will be interpreted as just another RINO/Tea Party sellout.

(Oklahoma Governor) Fallin’s irritation with the Legislature is climbing. She has vetoed 63 bills during her administration, 11 in both 2011 and 2012; 17 in 2013; and 24 as of May 2 this year.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 9:09 AM  

"The moral level of battle first and foremost requires convincing your own side that the battle is GOING TO BE FOUGHT."

A "dick move"? As opposed to what? No move?

We may also have to convince our own side from shooting at us while we wage battle in the arena.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 9:13 AM  

"A "dick move"? As opposed to what? No move? "

the "dick move" complaint is just an excuse for the lukewarms to throw rocks at their own side.

Anonymous p-dawg March 18, 2015 9:14 AM  

@Nate: I am pretty sure that it's only in your mind that people who understand the prohibition against swearing oaths don't understand what the Pledge of Allegiance is. I believe it's wishful thinking on your part, because in my experience, people who let their yes be yes and their no be no don't swear allegiance to countries or flags. But then, perhaps the people you know who don't swear oaths aren't otherwise very smart. I did always find it hilarious that people were required to swear an oath on the same book which tells them not to. The irony in that has been delicious to me since I discovered it.

Blogger Bodichi March 18, 2015 9:16 AM  

There is no enemy to my right.

Anonymous zen0 March 18, 2015 9:17 AM  

When this came up while I was staying at my (lefty) sister's house, I opined that the State should not be in the marriage business at all.

She agreed.

That meme has legs.

Anonymous Heaviside March 18, 2015 9:19 AM  

It would be so delicious to see the complete and total anal-devastation that would inevitably follow this bill passing in the state senate, even if such a thing would be an inconvenience to me personally.

Anonymous PA March 18, 2015 9:22 AM  

"ISIS doesn't give a fuck what language you use. Neither did the Viet Cong. And the Afghans have never cared either."

True, but they have active mass popular support. We're still working on it.

OpenID genericviews March 18, 2015 9:26 AM  

This is still the state defining marriage, not them getting out of the business of controling it. The bill should change all state law to refuse to aknowledge any form of marriage or civil arrangement, thus making marriage a truely private matter.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 9:30 AM  

@genericviews

Agreed. But you have to start somewhere and this is not a bad start. The question is how to build and maintain the necessary momentum in order to realize the long term goal you mentioned.

Anonymous Aquila Aquilonis March 18, 2015 9:31 AM  

A dick move is how children are made.

Blogger lordabacus March 18, 2015 9:37 AM  

"The bill should change all state law to refuse to aknowledge any form of marriage or civil arrangement, thus making marriage a truely private matter."

Word. And as a married atheist, I would have supported any state legislation preventing me from having to procure a marriage license from the state.

While we're on the subject of practical consequences, the Oklahoma bill sounds like a great revenue opportunity for those clergy willing to preside over atheist and same-sex marriages.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother March 18, 2015 9:37 AM  

Dick moves are my specialty.

Anonymous Gecko March 18, 2015 9:41 AM  

Nice. I've been trying to tell people the real problem is government getting involved in marriage, but they insist on fighting the wrong battles.

Its funny to me that the same people who will argue against swearing to tell the truth... will stand up and say the Pledge without so much as batting an eye.
Reminds me, it's kind of like where they insist on fighting about the "under God" when the real problem is the nature of the pledge. Want to stick to the original? Then make sure you include the Bellamy salute.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 9:43 AM  

" But then, perhaps the people you know who don't swear oaths aren't otherwise very smart. "

Its not about smart...its about what you bother to question. Most don't. The prohibition against swearing oaths is widely known and sited in the conservative baptist, church of God, and Church of Christ world... and yet they absolutely do not flinch when saying the pledge.

When called on it... they claim that since the US is a nation dedicated to God, it is no different than confessing faith in Jesus.

Anonymous Salt March 18, 2015 9:44 AM  

the Oklahoma bill sounds like a great revenue opportunity for those clergy willing to preside over atheist and same-sex marriages

Abstractly, it's said the root of all evil is money. Just say'n.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 9:46 AM  

"True, but they have active mass popular support. We're still working on it."

Correct. Which is why its morale.. and not moral. Its the morale of your troops.. not the moral message.

Anonymous Rolf March 18, 2015 9:47 AM  

Mixed feelings on this. We live in the physical world, and interact with the *&%@#~)]{\!! bureaucracy every day in one way or another. Having a piece of paper that unambiguously says you are hitched, with all attendant legal rights and responsibilities, a piece of paper that all governments recognize without hassle, is a very useful thing.

Yes, some things need to change, but don't know enough details on this one to be sure of it's long-term effects. Will it be great in the long term, or just a short-term tactical win that will make things more complicated later on? Dunno.

Anonymous Salt March 18, 2015 9:53 AM  

Having a piece of paper that unambiguously says you are hitched, with all attendant legal rights and responsibilities, a piece of paper that all governments recognize without hassle, is a very useful thing.

A private contract between two people, filed with the Office of the Clerk, being legally Notice To All, is exactly that. Also I think that, legally, putting such Notice in the paper for the required days serves as much too. One doesn't need gov't to be unambiguous about anything.

Anonymous Athor Pel March 18, 2015 9:54 AM  

I really like what this might do to the divorce industry. If the state is truly getting out of marriage completely then the legal hooks that state marriage supplies look to me as is they would go away or be much less supportable.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 9:55 AM  

". Having a piece of paper that unambiguously says you are hitched, with all attendant legal rights and responsibilities, a piece of paper that all governments recognize without hassle, is a very useful thing. "

and yet we got along fine without it for thousands of years.

Anonymous James Schardt March 18, 2015 9:55 AM  

The headline is misleading to the point of being a lie. First, there is no reason an Atheist could not find a priest to do a marriage. Second, even if a Fundamentalist Atheist were to disdain all contact with any religious entities they could still go to a Judge or a retired Judge and have the marriage performed. Third, you can get religious credentials through the mail for a small fee. If someone is adamant about being a Fundamentalist Anarcho-Atheist and doesn't want a Judge either they can get their buddy to send off for credentials calling him The Grand High Pubah of the Church of the Untenable Political Position and get married that way.

Anonymous BW March 18, 2015 9:59 AM  

Regarding getting the government out of marriage, it is important to note that it will do nothing to prevent lawsuits against people refusing to provide services involving same-sex partnerships, including churches performing private marriage ceremonies. These lawsuits are based on claims of discrimination and have nothing to do with the presence or absence of government laws regarding marriage. Also, if marriage becomes merely a private contract, does this mean that the government must recognize all private contracts that are designated as marriages, as being marriages? For example, two men make a private contact that explicitly states it's a marriage. Must the government recognize the terms of the contract as they are agreed upon by the contracting parties, including their agreement that it is a marriage?

Blogger lordabacus March 18, 2015 10:05 AM  

"Second, even if a Fundamentalist Atheist were to disdain all contact with any religious entities they could still go to a Judge or a retired Judge and have the marriage performed."

If you read some more articles on this, you will find that another aspect of the bill is barring public officials from performing marriages. But the other points are valid. I can personally attest that it is not that difficult to find a clergy member willing to marry a professed atheist. Easier, I would suspect, than finding one who would marry a gay couple. Though it might get a little more difficult if you plan on having some kind of obnoxiously overtly atheist ceremony.

Blogger Salt March 18, 2015 10:05 AM  

Also, if marriage becomes merely a private contract, does this mean that the government must recognize all private contracts that are designated as marriages, as being marriages?

Yes. Contract law is paramount, and I believe if the three elements are met to making a valid contract the government should stay out of it. Making contract is one of the greatest blessings one has control over. It can also be the most dangerous.

Anonymous Rhys March 18, 2015 10:06 AM  

I haven't read the bill. Does it restrict this to Christian clergy or limit it to a single man and wife? Otherwise I could see this backfiring and being used to introduce polygamy

Blogger Moor March 18, 2015 10:09 AM  

@ Salt: just a quick clarification. The LOVE of money is the root of all evil, not money itself.

Carry on.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 10:12 AM  

You don't understand 4GW. You don't even know what the moral battle means.

You're probably right. But as one commenter wrote "If it's going to remain a legal matter, where tax incentives are given for being married and the state still needs to issue licenses, then it most certainly is a legal matter," and there is truth in that. You're not going to rally people effectively if they're confused about the whole issue and what a maneuver actually will accomplish.

Moreover, while you believe the State has no say in marriage, historically marriage has had a huge stake in the State. From the patriarchic structures of clans and villages, to alliances between tribes and even empires, to inheritance law...marriage has had a huge role in the fundamental aspects of the State. That being the case, the two institutions most certainly will have to deal with each other. I have always been puzzled why it seems you avoid those details when discussing this issue.

If the end result is a renaming of all marriage as civil unions in legal documents, I'm not sure that winning this moral battle will spur on conservatives to fight more. It seems hollow and unsubstantial. But, I welcome you explaining the path to a better end result.

In the mean time WCHA finals are being hosted in Edina...and BGSU has now back among the living.

Anonymous The Gray Man March 18, 2015 10:16 AM  

Nate: we should take this one step further and refuse to allow atheists to testify in court.

I remember reading in de Tocqueville's Democracy in America that a judge (in NY, I believe) refused to let an atheist testify because he couldn't take an oath that meant anything.

Blogger Salt March 18, 2015 10:18 AM  

Moreover, while you believe the State has no say in marriage, historically marriage has had a huge stake in the State.

All contracts have a huge stake in the state. Every form of commerce is contractual. Doesn't mean contracts need to originate within the state to be beneficial to it.

Blogger Marissa March 18, 2015 10:21 AM  

Moreover, while you believe the State has no say in marriage, historically marriage has had a huge stake in the State. From the patriarchic structures of clans and villages, to alliances between tribes and even empires, to inheritance law...marriage has had a huge role in the fundamental aspects of the State. That being the case, the two institutions most certainly will have to deal with each other. I have always been puzzled why it seems you avoid those details when discussing this issue.

This is true and I'd much prefer to have an explicitly Christian state that vigorously defends marriage (one man, one woman; no divorce; etc.) but as we live in a functionally atheist state and our founding documents ignore the existence of Jesus Christ, this is the next best thing. And it really is a good thing.

I think Christians will have to withdraw from the state, considering how important they are to its upkeep and success, in order to win these kinds of battles. And I say this as very much not a libertarian. It seems to be the only way for right now.

Is Oklahoma party to many of those "white enclaves" mentioned in the comments of a previous article? I live in Texas, so I make it a point not to know too much about Oklahoma.

Anonymous Stickwick March 18, 2015 10:21 AM  

Wake me up when the shooting starts: The Culture War is already lost. I suspect our cultural masters will turn this situation around, and the Christians in Oklahoma will soon have their faces rubbed in dogshit.

Then why don't you just crawl under a rock and wait for the world to end? Or better yet, prepare to give your allegiance to your new overlords, and tell them how helpful you'll be in rounding up dissidents.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey March 18, 2015 10:24 AM  

Whether it passes or not, this is a win for Oklahoma. It basically tells all the Lib-Progs who want to emmigrate from the shitholes they have created to go somewhere else, like Colorado or Austin.

Blogger Rantor March 18, 2015 10:25 AM  

Does this mean Oklahoma could abolish the whole divorce court system? Could save the state lots more money.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 10:26 AM  

DrTorch: "I welcome you explaining the path to a better end result."

The path begins with an unshakeable commitment to the following premise:

" . . . never forget that neither state nor federal government ever had anything to do with creating marriage. And ideally, they would have nothing to say about it at all."

All of our actions can be predicated upon this premise. The more people sit around, wringing their hands about "dick moves", the more ground we stand to lose in this particular battle, a battle which is fundamental to our survival.

Nate is right. Get in the fight or get out. You're either in the fight or you're in the way.




Blogger Marissa March 18, 2015 10:29 AM  

Also, here in Texas, the Senate just voted on an open carry bill. It's going to the House now and I have no doubt, if it passes the House, that our governor will sign it. From what I understand, the 20 Republicans in the Senate voted yes and the 11 Democrats in the Senate voted no.

Blogger Salt March 18, 2015 10:34 AM  

Does this mean Oklahoma could abolish the whole divorce court system?

Yes, as any outside mediation needed for a marital contract dispute (divorce in this case) could be privately contracted for.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 18, 2015 10:37 AM  

"Oklahomans for Equality described the proposal as an "all-out assault on the LGBT citizens of Oklahoma.""

All they have to do is have the Grindr Rabbi move his Temple of the Gay Bacon Eating Rabbi from NYC to OK and they can get married.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell March 18, 2015 10:38 AM  

With the USSC about to make gay marriage the law of the land, this bill even if it becomes law will quickly be struck down.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 10:42 AM  

never forget that neither state nor federal government ever had anything to do with creating marriage. And ideally, they would have nothing to say about it at all

That premise is flawed. So flawed it's laughable. Perhaps you simply skimmed past the references I made in the post you quoted? Or did you just avoid the uncomfortable facts that abolish your fantastical notion.

Now that we're clear on that point: that throughout virtually all recorded history the State has dealt with marriage in any number of ways, maybe we can move on to a more reality-based description of what the end goal is.

Blogger Salt March 18, 2015 10:44 AM  

With the USSC about to make gay marriage the law of the land, this bill even if it becomes law will quickly be struck down.

SCOTUS is another abomination in what it has become. A battle soon to be waged will be over the 10th Amendment, and I suspect a few states will but wag the finger at them.

Anonymous Pope Cleophus I March 18, 2015 10:45 AM  

According to Blacks fifth edition law dictionary LICENCE means:
"The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal".

Since when has marriage between a man and a woman ever been illegal? The answer is ever since the STATE put their grimy fingers into the process to extract revenue from the rubes.

Blogger Al Cibiades March 18, 2015 10:49 AM  

@ Marissa I was enlightened after reading many of the documents from the founders at wallbuilders.com much the same way as I was after reading the early church fathers and the History of Eusebius.

If you haven't read the letters between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson, they're worth a look. It's a bit disheartening to read the numerous perspectives of such highly educated and principled men and realize how woefully inadequate our elected officials are today in comparison to them.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 18, 2015 10:54 AM  

"If you control the language, you control the argument. – Big Brother, 1984."

That requires your enemies to be literate.

"What they want... what they demand... is their super ssssssssspecial wedding celebration."

They always think they will be the ones receiving alimony not the guy on the hook for student loans he didn't take out. Commissar... body ditch. Is there a way to do strikeout lines thought text on the blog?

"Rahm Emanuel Needs Republican Help It's turning "- Does he need someone to carry polonium water for him?

"Also, if marriage becomes merely a private contract, "

Think about how many relationships never have an adult conversation about finances, that would force it.

"With the USSC about to make gay marriage the law of the land, this bill even if it becomes law will quickly be struck down."
Is there anything in the Bill stopping the church of Bacchus for opening up a wedding shack?

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 10:54 AM  

Moreover, while you believe the State has no say in marriage, historically marriage has had a huge stake in the State. From the patriarchic structures of clans and villages, to alliances between tribes and even empires, to inheritance law...marriage has had a huge role in the fundamental aspects of the State. That being the case, the two institutions most certainly will have to deal with each other. I have always been puzzled why it seems you avoid those details when discussing this issue.

You have it precisely backwards. Marriage is important to the State. The State is totally irrelevant to marriage, except when it interferes with the institution.

That premise is flawed. So flawed it's laughable. Perhaps you simply skimmed past the references I made in the post you quoted? Or did you just avoid the uncomfortable facts that abolish your fantastical notion.

The only thing that is laughable here is your ignorance on the subject. In Indiana, the state government wasn't even involved until 1958. It wasn't even Constitutionally asserted that the federal government had any ability to say anything at all about marriage until 1987, in Turner v. Safley.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 March 18, 2015 10:56 AM  

You know there are plenty of churches who would marry a non-believing couple, so I don't see how this is a problem for atheists. Or gays for that matter.

What is really going on is that the state of OK just exposed the Left's personal religion: Statism.

Anonymous Alexander March 18, 2015 10:59 AM  

Strikthrough text - not that I'm aware of, though I've tried... don't think /s works.

But that's not important. Now I can tell all my lefty friends and associates that a big gay fellow paraphrased my iron law. They will have a hard time scoffing at my insights about their behavior without revealing themselves to be homophobes!

Anonymous ChuckEC March 18, 2015 11:01 AM  

This is absurd. Are you telling me that atheists go to a Catholic Church to get married? There's no reason to ban that because 1) atheists don't do that and 2) the Catholic Church wouldn't marry them.

This is a nonissue.

Blogger kurt9 March 18, 2015 11:01 AM  

There was a referendum in Washington State to dissolve all marriages between those who do not or would not have kids. This referendum failed to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot.

I think there is a certain logic to making marriage (and having kids) the domain of religion. Those that are not religious would no longer feel compelled to do these things unless they really wanted to. I think the current social pressure put on people to get married and, especially to have kids, even when they have no desire to do so does nothing useful for anyone at all.

Blogger Marissa March 18, 2015 11:03 AM  

Thanks for the link, Al Cibiades. I've never heard of that website before so I'll check it out. I should clairfy - I don't believe the Founders were either stupid or Godless (for the most part), but I consider it a huge mistake to ignore Jesus Christ in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. And yes, today's politicians don't hold a candle to them. It's like comparing a Harvard grad of today to one 200 years ago.

OpenID cailcorishev March 18, 2015 11:12 AM  

I don't think its both at all. civilians are like band wagon fans. they follow the strong horse.

True. I know of nothing in history that indicates that you have to be on the side of right to get the masses to follow you. And in the age of mass media, that seems to be even more true.

Anonymous cheddarman March 18, 2015 11:14 AM  

"Nate is right. Get in the fight or get out. You're either in the fight or you're in the way." -Rabbi B.

I don't know if synagogues have amen corners, but I am in yours, Rabbi B.


Blogger CM March 18, 2015 11:17 AM  

When called on it... they claim that since the US is a nation dedicated to God, it is no different than confessing faith in Jesus.

And yet they have a problem praying to Mary or the saints?

On marriage being invested in the state vs vice versa...

A limited government is more invested in stable marriages than marriages are in government. Its one of the reasons government even set foot in marriage to begin with.

They wanted to incentivize marriage by providing benefits to married couples. To do so, they needed documentation. Claim benefits by having a witness sign this paper turned into can't get married without it.

That our government doesn't know why they cared in the first place is one of the primary reasons why they need to get out of it. That and our existing government isn't interested in a stable society and limited government. Chaos gives them power, so let chaos reign supreme.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 11:17 AM  

Thanks Cheddarman, your encouragement is always appreciated.

Blogger Noah B March 18, 2015 11:18 AM  

Secular marriage should be classified everywhere as an unconscionable contract.

Anonymous ChuckEC March 18, 2015 11:22 AM  

Vox said: " If the government wants to offer legal contracts to which two or more parties want to subscribe, that's fine, but never forget that neither state nor federal government ever had anything to do with creating marriage."

Uh, wow. Vox, I don't know where you live but in American the goverment already "offers legal contracts to which two or more parties want to subscribe.".

It's called getting married by the Justice of the Peace and NOT getting married in a church.

Again, folks, there is nothing that needs to even be changed. The religious can go to their religious ceremonies and atheists, secularists, and anyone else can go to a Justice of the Peace.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 11:22 AM  

"That premise is flawed. So flawed it's laughable."

So, let me try to understand. The premise that marriage is a Divine institution is flawed and laughable?

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 11:23 AM  

The State is totally irrelevant to marriage, except when it interferes with the institution.

The State aids in enforcement of contracts, and plays a role in many ways. The Church traditionally identifies four institutions created by God, three of which are the family, the Church and the civil state. These all have interplay w/ each other. Denying that is denying a traditional, and Biblically supported belief, but moreover, it's denying innumerable historical examples.

That's usually the fallacy you identify in others VD.

That premise is flawed. So flawed it's laughable. Perhaps you simply skimmed past the references I made in the post you quoted? Or did you just avoid the uncomfortable facts that abolish your fantastical notion.

The only thing that is laughable here is your ignorance on the subject. In Indiana, the state government wasn't even involved until 1958. It wasn't even Constitutionally asserted that the federal government had any ability to say anything at all about marriage until 1987, in Turner v. Safley.


*yawn* As I pointed out, this isn't about individual US States or the US. You retreat to cherry-picked examples from US history as if that defends your premise. This is about universal principles of how the State, the family and the Church interact, even if the application is changes w/in the US.

You want to see US States stop issuing "marriage" licenses? Ok. Fine. Now what?

Does it just legally register marriage (as opposed to license it)? Does it legally register civil union contracts? Does it issue licenses for civil union contracts? If not, what guidance is there for civil union contracts? Will Church marriages automatically count as civil union contracts? If not, who will enforce those vows?

The questions don't get fewer or easier when insisting the State change its involvement with marriage. And if that's the goal, then be clear about it; and be clear in how this benefits Christians, conservatives, libertarians, or whoever is supposed to be fighting back.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 11:25 AM  

So, let me try to understand. The premise that marriage is a Divine institution is flawed and laughable?

I didn't say that. You might try reading for comprehension before setting up your passive-aggressive strawman arguments.

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 11:25 AM  

Secular marriage should be classified everywhere as an unconscionable contract.

What i don't understand is how 15 years ago, this is exactly what was thought.

"I don't need a piece of paper to prove my love" was quite popular among secularists.

And then suddenly they did...

Blogger Noah B March 18, 2015 11:27 AM  

My suggestions:

Does it just legally register marriage (as opposed to license it)? No.
Does it legally register civil union contracts? No.
Does it issue licenses for civil union contracts? No.
If not, what guidance is there for civil union contracts? None from the state.
Will Church marriages automatically count as civil union contracts? Not applicable.
If not, who will enforce those vows? Families, churches, and communities.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 11:27 AM  

"I didn't say that."

That's why I asked for clarification and understanding. Help me better understand your position.

Anonymous joe doakes March 18, 2015 11:30 AM  

The state used to believe marriage was important, back when it believed the nuclear family was the fundamental organizational unit of society. The state punished sex outside marriage, required blood tests and waiting periods to get into marriage, and restricted divorce to keep people inside marriages.

Now that the Me Generation has shifted the fundamental organizational unit to the individual, the nuclear family is irrelevant to the state, casual sex is subsidized, divorce is no-fault and a marriage license is merely the basis to claim tax advantages.

Government no longer has an interest in promoting marriage so it should get out of the business of regulating it.

Anonymous ChuckEC March 18, 2015 11:33 AM  

Are civil unions considered marriages??

Anonymous ChuckEC March 18, 2015 11:37 AM  

Dr. Torch, you make good points.
But you said, "Will Church marriages automatically count as civil union contracts? If not, who will enforce those vows?"

If not who will enforce? The gov't doesn't currently enforce the vows of a Catholic marriage, does it?
The enforcing of the vows would be on the part of the husband and wife, their religious community, and the deposit of their faith.... no??

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 11:41 AM  

Are civil unions considered marriages??

In the way they are treated by states and society at large? Yes.

Apparently by LGBTs, no. Why, i don't know - because they want churches to marry them in gorgeous cathedrals with stained glass? As opposed to waiting in line for the JoP with the classless dregs of society?

Blogger JartStar March 18, 2015 11:42 AM  

DrTorch

This legislation isn't designed to solve all questions about how the state interacts with the institution of marriage, it's designed to change the direction of the conversation and discuss which institution (church or state) gets to define what marriage is and how to go about enforcing it.

Marriage cannot both be defined by the State and God for it to have any meaning.

Anonymous ChuckEC March 18, 2015 11:43 AM  

Gene Wolfe's book "Home Fires" makes the distinction between marriage and contracts.
Contracted people don't refer to their spouse as 'husband' or 'wife', they call them "contractas"

Anonymous zen0 March 18, 2015 11:49 AM  

Nate is right. Get in the fight or get out. You're either in the fight or you're in the way.

So in practical terms, if any ilk are Okies, you better get those letters of support out to the legislators immediately.

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 11:52 AM  

Contracted people don't refer to their spouse as 'husband' or 'wife', they call them "contractas"

Seems to me they can call eachother whatever the bloody hell they want... even define it in the (private) contract!

we hereby declare that we shall refer to each other as "Teddy Bear" and "chu chie face".

Anonymous Stingray March 18, 2015 11:55 AM  

Why, i don't know

Civil unions do not have the same status marker as a church wedding. Though it's gone beyond that know from the gay crown into, do this for us because we want to own you. The moment you cave, they do and they know it.

Anonymous ChuckEC March 18, 2015 11:58 AM  

CM, I was simply saying what happened in Gene Wolfe's book Home Fires.

Blogger Durendal Virtu March 18, 2015 11:58 AM  

But there is still the issue of just starting your own church to get around this. I no longer support the bs that someone can just start a church like scientology or say the Church of Multiculti that marries all kinds in all arrangements.

Religion is like culture. Diversity of either without restrictions is problematic.

Note the marriage issue wasn't a problem under kings who held to some level, an acknowledgement that they had to answer to God. Democracies never feel this responsibility unless all the people who make it up have the same culture, religion and values.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 12:01 PM  

This legislation isn't designed to solve all questions about how the state interacts with the institution of marriage, it's designed to change the direction of the conversation and discuss which institution (church or state) gets to define what marriage is and how to go about enforcing it.

Marriage cannot both be defined by the State and God for it to have any meaning.


Certainly not if those definitions contradict each other. I agree w/ you. But if the State's civil union contracts get referred to as "marriage" in the common vernacular, will this have any effect?

If not who will enforce? The gov't doesn't currently enforce the vows of a Catholic marriage, does it?
The enforcing of the vows would be on the part of the husband and wife, their religious community, and the deposit of their faith.... no??


In another era maybe, but not so much now. The state decides division of property, child custody, alimony, even 401K decisions among divorcees.

I think what you are saying is that if marriage retreats back from the State to the Church, then the State will be obliged to get out of these details*, strengthening marriage.

Important questions and details still persist, not the least of which is whether the State will acknowledge religious marriages. But at least you have provided a recognizable profitable end goal.

*Of course the State won't do that, but at least the line is drawn clearly.

Blogger Brad Andrews March 18, 2015 12:03 PM  

I think the current social pressure put on people to get married and, especially to have kids, even when they have no desire to do so does nothing useful for anyone at all.

This pressure can and should exist to make sure civilization continues past the next few years.

No children means no following generation!

Vox says it clearly, those who show up for the future win. Intentionally not having children means you are sacrificing the future in the name of your current pleasure. You are free to do that, but don't expect me to do anything to support you know in your attempt to undermine my future.

Blogger James Dixon March 18, 2015 12:04 PM  

> Does it just legally register marriage (as opposed to license it)?

Ideally, no.

> Does it legally register civil union contracts?

Ideally, no.

> Does it issue licenses for civil union contracts?

Are licenses normally required to enter into a contract?

> If not, what guidance is there for civil union contracts?

What guidance is needed?

> Will Church marriages automatically count as civil union contracts?

Ideally, no.

> If not, who will enforce those vows?

The office which gives them.

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 12:04 PM  

The State aids in enforcement of contracts, and plays a role in many ways. The Church traditionally identifies four institutions created by God, three of which are the family, the Church and the civil state. These all have interplay w/ each other. Denying that is denying a traditional, and Biblically supported belief, but moreover, it's denying innumerable historical examples.

That's usually the fallacy you identify in others VD.


No, it's not. You're a historical ignoramus on the grand scale as well as the American one. You're playing very fast and loose with your terms, which means I'm going to crucify you on the details.

*yawn* As I pointed out, this isn't about individual US States or the US. You retreat to cherry-picked examples from US history as if that defends your premise. This is about universal principles of how the State, the family and the Church interact, even if the application is changes w/in the US.

Oh, you want to be a prick now? Very well. I gave you the easy out and you didn't take it. We'll do this the systematic way, then.

First question: does the institution of marriage predate the institution of the State?

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 12:07 PM  

In another era maybe, but not so much now. The state decides division of property, child custody, alimony, even 401K decisions among divorcees.

There was a long bunch of comments in a similar post not so long ago where it was suggested churches handle these disputes internally and that private contracts can take on some of the aspects of pre-nups.

It isn't impossible. It might take some doing, but there exists to some extent a framework that can be utilized.

Blogger Giraffe March 18, 2015 12:08 PM  

Seems like there would be an easy way around this. They already have atheist "churches". They just create the church of the flying spaghetti monster, ordain a "pastor" and they can marry anybody they want. This is actually more likely to legalize gay weddings rather than ban them.

Blogger JartStar March 18, 2015 12:09 PM  

I agree w/ you. But if the State's civil union contracts get referred to as "marriage" in the common vernacular, will this have any effect?

It absolutely will. Separate the two and watch how much outrage there is from the progressives. They will be incensed that they only get a civil contract from the government and have to go to a church get married, even if all of the legal benefits are granted by the civil contract and government and the marriage is only a religious ceremony.

Blogger JDC March 18, 2015 12:10 PM  

Under the legislation, atheists and others not wanting to be married by a religious official could file an affidavit through the court clerk’s office claiming a common-law marriage.

There are a plethora of religious officials who are willing to perform a marriage for gay or atheist peoples. Some, but not all of the churches in the ELCA, Episcopal church, UCC, Presbyterian...and let's not forget the "online ordained."

I however applaud the stance taken by the Oklahoma House...if for no other reason than it will drive the SJW's (who really don't care about the institution other than to destroy it) crazy, and strengthen the conservative Christian base. It helps the fearful when someone stands up and says what they wish they could say. It's one reason i visit VP so often, if for no other reason, than to read that strong voice.

The LCMS has provided its churches with a sample marriage policy which reads,

The marriage policy of _____________________, a member congregation of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, is and always has been consistent with the Synod’s beliefs on marriage. We believe that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24-25), and that God gave marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride the Church (Eph. 5:32). The official position of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, as set forth in 1998 Res. 3-21 (“To Affirm the Sanctity of Marriage and to Reject Same-Sex Unions”), is that homosexual unions come under categorical prohibition in the Old and New Testaments (Lev. 18:22, 24; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10) as contrary to the Creator’s design (Rom. 1:26-27). Our pastors will not officiate over any marriages inconsistent with these beliefs, and our church property may not be used for any marriage ceremony, reception.

In the past three years I have been contacted by two same sex couples seeking to have their wedding at our church (their sole reason is because we are located close to a very popular vacation destination). The obvious answer was no, but one couple wanted to meet with me to discuss it further, which I agreed to. The conversation was interesting. I am all for any action that tells the SJW's and progressives that we aren't going to sit and take it anymore.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 12:11 PM  

"So in practical terms, if any ilk are Okies, you better get those letters of support out to the legislators immediately."

Yes. Exactly. Those legislators need to know they're not alone. Expressing support builds momentum and is not difficult to do.

A few years back a local state senator attempted to pass a law that would have required homeschooling parents to have a college degree to teach their children at home. Hoards of homeschoolers descended on the capitol building while the senator was presenting the bill to the education committee of which he was the chairman. Over 3000 people showed up and it was standing room only. The capitol had never seen such a gathering in the entire history of the state legislature.

Needless to say, the bill didn't make it out of committee and was voted down 9 to 1. It was visible on the expressions on the faces of the committee that they dare not vote any other way. I've never been active in politics outside of voting, but I'll never forget the feeling that all of us who showed up that day had made a real difference. That was about ten years ago, and we have not had any opposition since.

Blogger Marissa March 18, 2015 12:19 PM  

A few years back a local state senator attempted to pass a law that would have required homeschooling parents to have a college degree to teach their children at home. Hoards of homeschoolers descended on the capitol building while the senator was presenting the bill to the education committee of which he was the chairman. Over 3000 people showed up and it was standing room only. The capitol had never seen such a gathering in the entire history of the state legislature.

Needless to say, the bill didn't make it out of committee and was voted down 9 to 1. It was visible on the expressions on the faces of the committee that they dare not vote any other way. I've never been active in politics outside of voting, but I'll never forget the feeling that all of us who showed up that day had made a real difference. That was about ten years ago, and we have not had any opposition since.


That's awesome and very inspiring. As long as a good amount of people show up for those committee hearings, most crappy bills wouldn't make it out of committee. In Texas, the committee rooms are small, so it doesn't take that many people to make an impact. Homeschoolers have the advantage, too, that those Tuesday at 3 p.m. committees can be more easily attended, especially if you have other homeschooling mom friends to help watch all the kids at the Capitol together.

Also, what a stupid law. What state was that?

Blogger Giraffe March 18, 2015 12:20 PM  

Yeah:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/11/oklahoma-bill-would-legalize-gay-marriag

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 12:20 PM  

"What state was that?"

Montana

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 12:20 PM  

It absolutely will. Separate the two and watch how much outrage there is from the progressives. They will be incensed that they only get a civil contract from the government and have to go to a church get married, even if all of the legal benefits are granted by the civil contract and government and the marriage is only a religious ceremony.

Example: the status quo as recently as 5 years ago!

Blogger IM2L844 March 18, 2015 12:22 PM  

So in practical terms, if any ilk are Okies, you better get those letters of support out to the legislators immediately.

Yes, good advice. I actually emailed my state legislators, James Halligan and Cory Williams, expressing my desire for the state of Oklahoma to get completely out of the business of officially sanctioning marriage.

OpenID simplytimothy March 18, 2015 12:26 PM  

What is really going on is that the state of OK just exposed the Left's personal religion: Statism.

yes.

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

The left cannot countenance a competitor to their god/idol-the state.Christians cannot and will not disobey the first commandment.

God is making it abundantly clear (again) that there is no middle ground. It is His way or hell.

God bless, the christian state of Oklahoma.

As an aside, we can start building parallel civil structures to the moloch-on-the-potomac today--currency, civil law, communications, education, etc. When the secularists attempt to shut-down OK, don't be surprised to see the beginnings of that groundwork there.

Blogger IM2L844 March 18, 2015 12:34 PM  

For anyone interested in the details.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 12:35 PM  

@IM2L844

"I actually emailed my state legislators, James Halligan and Cory Williams, expressing my desire for the state of Oklahoma to get completely out of the business of officially sanctioning marriage."

Encouraging

+1

Blogger guest March 18, 2015 12:41 PM  

The government does have an interest in promoting heterosexual marriages though. That is, allowing tax deductions for married couples, and any other program to make heterosexual covenants easier.

Ben Carson is wrong to promote homosexual unions, and allow them to get these same government favors. They don't deserve them. He might just not get my vote.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 12:44 PM  

No, it's not. You're a historical ignoramus on the grand scale as well as the American one. You're playing very fast and loose with your terms, which means I'm going to crucify you on the details.

Heh. You failed with your attempt to show that science doesn't benefit the economy, using the same approach: skipping the details you didn't like. I suspect you'll fail here too.

*yawn* As I pointed out, this isn't about individual US States or the US. You retreat to cherry-picked examples from US history as if that defends your premise. This is about universal principles of how the State, the family and the Church interact, even if the application is changes w/in the US.

Oh, you want to be a prick now? Very well. I gave you the easy out and you didn't take it. We'll do this the systematic way, then.

First question: does the institution of marriage predate the institution of the State?


First answer: Biblically, yes it does.

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 12:52 PM  

Ben Carson is wrong to promote homosexual unions, and allow them to get these same government favors.

There are no government benefits to marriage.

I am a dependent legally. Anyone who lived full time in this house and contributed less than 50% of the total income is legally considered a dependent... whether my husband is sleeping with them or not.

The benefits carson is directly referring to are related to how private industries handle domestic living situations and proof of it... which i seriously question some of the practices even beyond lgbt - like icu visits being limited to only immediate family.

But marriage certificates and civil unions should not be necessary for that... medical directives? Or insurance coverage of a dependent...

Not to be a carson apologist or anything, but there are things in our society that ride on the legal marriage contract and it would behoove us to question why some of these exist and if they can be achieved another way.

Government hasn't provided marriage benefits for quite some time. Its why you get more money for shacking up with a girl and her kid as opposed to your own baby mama... everyone gets more money from the government in that situation than married couples raising their own legitimate kids.

Anonymous Okies Are Dumb March 18, 2015 12:54 PM  

Man...those Okies are funny. It's as though they are working overtime to prove to the world that their reputation as dumb hicks is more than earned.

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 12:55 PM  

First question: does the institution of marriage predate the institution of the State?

First answer: Biblically, yes it does.


Even if we are just discussing biblical marriage, i woulda gone further. In every known ancient civ that practiced marital unions, the institution existed before government involvement.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 1:03 PM  

" . . . the institution existed before government involvement."

Yes, and whose idea was marriage and family anyway?

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 1:05 PM  

In every known ancient civ that practiced marital unions, the institution existed before government involvement.

My knowledge doesn't run deep enough that I could say that. But just to make sure, are you saying that in these historical accounts, marriage existed before gov't involvement or before government?

The latter doesn't seem to be the case with something like the Epic of Gilgamesh, if I'm remembering correctly.

Blogger Corvinus March 18, 2015 1:07 PM  

Man...those Okies are funny. It's as though they are working overtime to prove to the world that their reputation as dumb hicks is more than earned.

Yeah, the Ukies have sure screwed up big time recently.

Oklahoma should repeatedly hammer home that this is a move to "get the state out of marriage". Also hammer home the fact that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity, and that pulling the state out would neuter the whole thing. Atheists can have their shacking-up relationships (they repeatedly tell everyone that marriage is an outdated institution anyway), Christians can have marriage, and everyone will be happy.

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 1:14 PM  

DT - i don't have enough historical knowledge or even know if that knowledge exists to determine if marriage in other cultures existed before government.

I do know the top 3 ancient western civs (egypt, rome, & greece) all practiced marital unions... and the practice in all three predates their governments' involvement.

Because our knowledge of these cultures is tied to the evolution of their governing systems, i don't think there's enough for us to tell if marriage existed before government.

In tribal societies, both ancient and current, we DO see some form of union existing without a "traditional" government. And this is also what we see in the Bible.

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 1:14 PM  

Heh. You failed with your attempt to show that science doesn't benefit the economy, using the same approach: skipping the details you didn't like. I suspect you'll fail here too.

Back up your assertion or retract.

Biblically, yes it does.

That's a qualified answer. I didn't ask about the Bible. I repeat. Does the institution of marriage predate the institution of the State?

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 1:25 PM  

" . . .that pulling the state out would neuter the whole thing."

Now THAT's a "dick move" I would like to see.

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 1:32 PM  

That's a qualified answer. I didn't ask about the Bible. I repeat. Does the institution of marriage predate the institution of the State?

I'm trying real hard not to answer for him... but i'm genuinely curious in the outcome of this.

I inadvertently answered in my last comment... tribes are the original governments. And patriarchal tribes could not even exist without a marital union and offspring over which the patriarch presides.

All forms of government are an evolution or adding on to the original patriarchical tribal model of father/husband/elder presiding over all.

So marriage predates government at its most basic level... because it wouldn't exist without the marriage.

Anonymous Jeffrey S. March 18, 2015 1:32 PM  

DrTorch is right -- it is silly to say we can get the "government out of the marriage business":

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/01/why_the_government_should_be_i.html

As Lydia points out (with a link to a different blog) if the government doesn't define marriage, the courts will (which is what the courts of the State of Indiana did prior to 1958 -- enforce common law around marriage contracts). Don't give up the fight -- marriage means something and just because liberals are nominalists we should let them take over the government and brainwash everyone into renaming everything under the sun because they want to.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 1:35 PM  


Back up your assertion or retract.


That conversation was a few years ago. I did a search but can't find that discussion, using key words I'm pretty sure I brought up. I will give you my recollection:
You made the claim that science doesn't benefit the economy, but rather it's entrepreneurs.

I responded saying entrepreneurs were beneficial, but many important products/processes came about from entrepreneurs directly using science. I can recall citing three (possibly more) which spawned major industries and/or impacted existing ones. They were:

William Perkin- inventing mauve dye...and ultimately industry of synthetic chemistry
Charles Townes- invention of maser
Chester Carlson- hiring science company to develop photocopy process beyond his garage efforts

Any single rebuttal disproves your claim, I provided at least three, all of which were hugely significant.

I figured Chester Carlson would be a useful keyword search, but that provides no links.

That's a qualified answer. I didn't ask about the Bible. I repeat. Does the institution of marriage predate the institution of the State?

This qualified answer is a legitimate answer. It is one of the few texts that claims to go back to the historical origin of man. Any other reference would be open to further questions, so your request for something else is puzzling.

What are you trying to get me to say?

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 1:35 PM  

I'm trying real hard not to answer for him... but i'm genuinely curious in the outcome of this.

Then stay out of it.

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 1:38 PM  

You made the claim that science doesn't benefit the economy, but rather it's entrepreneurs.

I never made the claim that science is of zero benefit to the economy. But since you won't retract, I'll go ahead and pin you down. Is science is of more or less benefit to the economy than entrepreneurs?

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 1:41 PM  

" . . .it is silly to say we can get the "government out of the marriage business":"

What's so silly about it?

" . . .if the government doesn't define marriage, the courts will (which is what the courts of the State of Indiana did prior to 1958 -- enforce common law around marriage contracts)."

The State includes the courts. Forbid State involvement. Just because no one sees it happening overnight, does not preclude the necessity of it happening.

Oklahoma is hopefully the first of many right steps in the right direction. Pioneers inevitably take the arrows and they take enough in the chest as it is without having to worry about the gutless 'moderates' shooting at them from behind.

Blogger James Dixon March 18, 2015 1:43 PM  

> ...marriage means something and just because liberals are nominalists we should let them take over the government and brainwash everyone into renaming everything under the sun because they want to.

That's not what we're doing. Your inability to understand the issue makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 1:43 PM  

Furthermore, here is what shows up when you search "science" and "entrepreneurs" on the blog:

Here is what shows up when you search science and entrepreneurs on the blog:

"I have to disagree with Instapundit's take on the matter. He sees this Italian attempt to hold scientists accountable for engaging in unscientific activity that led directly to great loss of life as creating "incentives for scientists to leave Italy and to avoid giving any sort of earthquake advice to the Italian government. I predict a run of bad luck."

First, I note the inapplicability of the quote to the situation. Heinlein was talking about entrepreneurs and technological and conceptual innovators when he described his "extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people". He most certainly wasn't describing publicly acclaimed, government-funded individuals hailed as the nation's "most respected geophysicists".


Where is the claim about science being of no benefit to the economy?

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 1:45 PM  

What are you trying to get me to say?

I want an unequivocal Yes/No answer. It's a very clear question and it is not at all difficult. Does the institution of marriage predate the institution of the State?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 18, 2015 1:57 PM  

Vox: "First question: does the institution of marriage predate the institution of the State?"

DrTorch: "First answer: Biblically, yes it does."

Save yourself some part of the coming embarrassment: just give an unqualified yes and move on to the next bit.

The earliest state-builders enlisted religion in their support. Even then the gods were arranged in married pairs, concordantly with the way human beings were ordered, an order that already seemed older than dirt. Among the Egyptians, marriage (without benefit of any ceremony, religious or civil) was simply assumed to be part of the original, unblemished creation of the gods, and the political program of every Pharaoh was to restore that time as much as practically possible.

I'll skip the rest of my examples. Just say yes; you won't be passing up a fight you could have won.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 1:58 PM  

Where is the claim about science being of no benefit to the economy?

Perhaps my paraphrase was too far off. I think the discussion occurred at this post.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/04/education-vs-economics.html

I believe my comments were in response to your final paragraph, "Third, I contend this supports my point that the advancement of science is a consequence of societal wealth, not a cause of it."

I want an unequivocal Yes/No answer. It's a very clear question and it is not at all difficult.

I've given you a fair answer that is as unequivocal as you request. You claim your logic is rigorous, then you should have no problems w/ this answer. I have gone back to the historical origin of man and answered "yes".

Blogger James Dixon March 18, 2015 2:03 PM  

> Then stay out of it.

Hey, I have learned something over the years. Will wonders never cease?

Blogger James Dixon March 18, 2015 2:07 PM  

> The earliest state-builders enlisted religion in their support. Even then the gods were arranged in married pairs, concordantly with the way human beings were ordered, an order that already seemed older than dirt

I think it likely that lifetime mated pairs even predates our emergence as a distinct species (whatever you think the mechanism for that to be).

Blogger hank.jim March 18, 2015 2:08 PM  

I'm sure the courts will find a way to make it unenforceable. That's the way things work these days.

Anonymous rho March 18, 2015 2:11 PM  

First question: does the institution of marriage predate the institution of the State?

How flexibly can "State" be defined? If Thog and Blurg got married, and Thog found out that Blurg couldn't keep the cave clean, how did they divide the Thoglings and frozen mastodon meat? Wouldn't the Supreme Council of Ug have to step in and mediate?

OpenID simplytimothy March 18, 2015 2:13 PM  

I'm sure the courts will find a way to make it unenforceable. That's the way things work these days.

Whose courts make what unenforeceable?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 March 18, 2015 2:14 PM  

How flexibly can "State" be defined?

The "State" is an institution granted a monopoly of force by society ideally for the purposes of handling matters of justice or war.

Mediation does not require force.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 18, 2015 2:16 PM  

James Dixon: "I think it likely that lifetime mated pairs even predates our emergence as a distinct species (whatever you think the mechanism for that to be)."

I think so too.

Not the sort of thing that anyone with an ideology including respect for enduring values should want to meddle with.

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 2:17 PM  

I've given you a fair answer that is as unequivocal as you request. You claim your logic is rigorous, then you should have no problems w/ this answer. I have gone back to the historical origin of man and answered "yes".

All right, I will accept that as a yes.

Second question, do you admit that I did not fail in an attempt to show that science doesn't benefit the economy, and that I did not use the same approach: skipping the details I didn't like?

Anonymous rho March 18, 2015 2:22 PM  

Mediation does not require force.

You've clearly never met the Thog and Blurg families. Rocks and pointy sticks everywhere.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 18, 2015 2:27 PM  

"So in practical terms, if any ilk are Okies, you better get those letters of support out to the legislators immediately."

Put in your letters to make sure they cant force churches to marry people against their faith, at least not while Rev BigGaySteve's Wedding Shack, liquor store & church of Baucus is available. Just like Hollywood gay jews can't help but make sacrilegious movies about old testament patriarchs, some wont want to get married anywhere that would accept them. Just out of curiosity if you had your own internet certificate church could you sell sacred wine & spirits tax free?

"It's as though they are working overtime to prove to the world that their reputation as dumb hicks is more than earned."
Maybe they are trying to make sure the people fleeing CA don't move in. I wonder if CA will stop taking in illegals when they run out of H2O

""Third, I contend this supports my point that the advancement of science is a consequence of societal wealth, not a cause of it."
Having a surplus and free time go a long way to advancing science. If Newton was starving there would be no apples falling off his tree, he would have ate them all before they dropped.

Anonymous Okies Are Dumb March 18, 2015 2:33 PM  

"Also hammer home the fact that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity"

Yes, everything is an attack on Christianity. Please!!! Just because you don't approve doesn't mean it's an attack on you or Christianity or religion or anything else. It may just be of the many, many alternatives to a Christian centered world view.

The persecution complex possessed by some Christians is just getting dull.

Anonymous Okies Are Dumb March 18, 2015 2:39 PM  

"I'm sure the courts will find a way to make it unenforceable. That's the way things work these days."

You are an Okie aren't you.

Actually, it's the way the Constitution works...these days and in past days.

Anonymous Bloggers are dumb March 18, 2015 2:45 PM  

"Is science is of more or less benefit to the economy than entrepreneurs?"

Who in their right mind even considers the possibility that entrepreneurs are more of a benefit to the economy than science.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 2:47 PM  

Second question, do you admit that I did not fail in an attempt to show that science doesn't benefit the economy, and that I did not use the same approach: skipping the details I didn't like?

No, I admit no such thing. You absolutely failed to do so.
In contrast, at that time I provided the names and historical references I repeated above, which provide clear direction as to why your assertion is wrong.

Further details:

http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=467
What is the Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry?

This industry manufactures basic organic chemicals (other than petrochemicals), industrial gases and synthetic dyes and pigments. Key product groups include gum and wood products, cyclic crudes and intermediates, ethyl alcohol and other basic organic chemicals. These products are predominantly intermediates that are used as raw material inputs by other manufacturing industries in the production of downstream products.


http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/

http://optics.org/news/1/1/16
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/laser-diode-market---global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2014---2020-300007777.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excimer_laser
Excimer lasers are widely used in high-resolution photolithography machines, one of the critical technologies required for microelectronic chip manufacturing. Current state-of-the-art lithography tools use deep ultraviolet (DUV) light from the KrF and ArF excimer lasers with wavelengths of 248 and 193 nanometers (the dominant lithography technology today is thus also called “excimer laser lithography”[12][13][14][15]), which has enabled transistor feature sizes to shrink below 45 nanometers. Excimer laser lithography has thus played a critical role in the continued advance of the so-called Moore’s law for the last 20 years.

http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/photocopiers-market.html

The original discussion thread is gone now, so you know I cannot provide any tangible proof of it existing. If that necessitates my retraction I will. However, you seem to be repeating that claim again, despite having the contrary evidence up front. So, you're pretty close to providing me with adequate support for my earlier claim.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 18, 2015 2:53 PM  

Okies Are Dumb: "It may just be of the many, many alternatives to a Christian centered world view."

Alternatives to the Christian world view have also supported marriage from the most ancient times.

Anti-marriage ideologies (of which the worst are feminist) are recent, artificial and socially destructive creations. They have roots on groups hostile to white, Christian societies, and are more like weapons of social pollution than legitimate schools of thought with a history of success in civilization-building.

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 3:02 PM  

No, I admit no such thing. You absolutely failed to do so. In contrast, at that time I provided the names and historical references I repeated above, which provide clear direction as to why your assertion is wrong.

How stupid can you possibly be? I said I never made any such assertion. You just suggested that "ooh, maybe I didn't quite, you know, describe it ENTIRELY accurately", which is the gamma male's way of admitting that you completely fucked it up. And now you're claiming that I "absolutely failed" to support the assertion THAT I NEVER MADE.

Anyhow, it's clear that you're not emotionally continent enough for rational discourse. I have no interest in kicking around insecure gamma males. I know perfectly well that you're psychologically incapable of admitting that you're wrong even when it is conclusively proved, and therefore you are incapable of dialectic.

However, it does remind me that I have not conclusively demonstrated that science is more a consequence of wealth than a cause of it, mostly because I had assumed it was completely fucking obvious to anyone with an IQ over 115. I shall do so in the near future.

However, you seem to be repeating that claim again, despite having the contrary evidence up front. So, you're pretty close to providing me with adequate support for my earlier claim.

(laughs) You can't repeat that which never existed in the first place.

Who in their right mind even considers the possibility that entrepreneurs are more of a benefit to the economy than science.

Pretty much every non-Marxian economist ever. And even the Marxians might, I'm just not interested in thinking through their lunatic logic to reach a conclusion.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 18, 2015 3:12 PM  

Bloggers are dumb: "Who in their right mind even considers the possibility that entrepreneurs are more of a benefit to the economy than science."

Me.

In a poor country lacking the widespread education, infrastructure and culture to mobilize science economically, a government-funded pure science institution, supported out of foreign aid and by heavy taxes on the potters, weavers and goat-farmers outside its gates, is a perverse prestige project and a source of future increased poverty.

If you want to help a poor country, you need to do a lot of hard thinking about actually existing technology the natives can actually handle, and whether the institutions you will be creating can ever be profitable, and if so how you stop government ministers interfering and / or simply appropriating the goods for themselves for personal use or to sell off on the black market.

This kind of thinking, which is in essence entrepreneurial thinking, is of much more use than, say, an atom smasher that the President for Life can boast about to foreigners.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 3:13 PM  

"Who in their right mind even considers the possibility that entrepreneurs are more of a benefit to the economy than science."


Holy shit.

I can't believe someone could even type this sentence.

Science offers nothing. Literally nothing. Engineering offers lots... but even engineering is all but useless without the capitalists that bring it to market.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 3:15 PM  

"
Actually, it's the way the Constitution works...these days and in past days. "

Actually... you're the dumbass here.

The constitution is about equal protection and equal treatment. Governments marrying no one... is the government treating everyone equally.

Blogger Noah B March 18, 2015 3:17 PM  

"Science offers nothing. Literally nothing."

I dunno, it gives the engineers ideas doesn't it? Or at least, it can if it isn't politically motivated bullshit. But entrepreneurship is the engine that drives the economy.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 3:20 PM  

"I dunno, it gives the engineers ideas doesn't it? Or at least, it can if it isn't politically motivated bullshit. "

I don't think it gives engineers ideas. They get their ideas from people who think up shit and go "Hey can we make this work?"

Blogger Marissa March 18, 2015 3:21 PM  

The constitution is about equal protection and equal treatment.

Not really. There are all kinds of inequalities in the Constitution, like who's allowed to run for office and who's counted as population, etc. I'm not a fan of equal protection or equal treatment, so that's fine with me.

Blogger ray March 18, 2015 3:27 PM  

Christian and Hebrew men should reject civil marriage on the obvious grounds that it isn't the State's business. Now that the State has become Team Fem plus male enforcers, this decision should be obvious.


Secular men should reject civil marriage on pure practical grounds. Do you imagine that Femerica is going to let you raise your sons with masculine qualities? She won't, and she will use every method to destroy those qualities in you, too. Because only then can Oppressed Women be free from abuse! Etc.



Marriage is between a male, a female, and God. Period. Lifelong vows which God WILL expect you to keep. Nothing has changed -- females are expected to obey their husbands, and husbands to love their wives. Simple, and utterly non-commercial. No weddings or related Ego-Fests. The purpose of the marriage ceremony is to honor God, and secondly to prepare for the raising of children. Not to prepare western females for a life of further privilege, entitlement, attention, and empowerment over their husbands.



About 70 percent of kids in inner cities now are fatherless. The rate for others is approaching 50 percent, and the western gynarchies assuredly will not cease until ALL paternal and authentic masculine influence has been removed from families, churches, and government.



Stop giving the matriarchy legal instruments to rule over, and to crush, the lives of men and boys, while it makes a profit on their misery.

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 3:28 PM  

The original discussion thread is gone now, so you know I cannot provide any tangible proof of it existing. If that necessitates my retraction I will.

No, I'm not concerned about that any longer. You clearly failed to even understand what it was that I was asking you to admit. It is obvious that you have a tendency to read into things that simply are not there.

And I don't mind restating my position. Science can be beneficial for the economy. But it is not a primary, secondary, or even tertiary driver of economic growth. I readily admit that I have not conclusively proved this yet.

But it will not be hard, as anyone with even a modest knowledge of economics will likely recognize.

Anonymous Stickwick March 18, 2015 3:33 PM  

Okies Are Dumb: Yes, everything is an attack on Christianity. Please!!! Just because you don't approve doesn't mean it's an attack on you or Christianity or religion or anything else. It may just be of the many, many alternatives to a Christian centered world view.

Three exclamation points, guys! This is serious!!!

Considering that activists are going after MARRIAGE instead of lobbying for a contractual relationship with zero religious connotations, i.e. a civil union, proves exactly the opposite of your claim. And, right on schedule, as soon as gay "marriage" was legalized, the attacks on Christian businesses and churches that refused to participate started. More proof.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 3:35 PM  

"Not really. There are all kinds of inequalities in the Constitution, like who's allowed to run for office and who's counted as population, etc."

meh. Ancient history now and not relevant to the discussion. What matters is today. And today... if the government is treating citizen A like citizen B... you're not going to have a leg to stand on when you start complaining.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 3:36 PM  

How stupid can you possibly be? I said I never made any such assertion.

I quoted the paragraph you made in Apr 2011 completely in my 1:58pm post. I responded to that statement, both in 2011, and now. I retract my paraphrase if that is causing any confusion.

How can you say you never made such an assertion? You wrote this, "Third, I contend this supports my point that the advancement of science is a consequence of societal wealth, not a cause of it."

That's a different statement than, " it does remind me that I have not conclusively demonstrated that science is more a consequence of wealth than a cause of it,"

In fact it looks to me as if you've toned down your assertion quite a bit in lieu of actual historical data.


Science offers nothing. Literally nothing.

I don't deny that science's role gets overstated in the popular culture. But to say it offers nothing is wrong. Even as a flippant remark, it's just wrong.

Ironically, even as the culture celebrates science, it forgets that actual scientists who have most impacted society/technology. Perkin is essentially an unknown. Townes based his lab work on Einstein's theories, that's true, but Townes is hardly a household name. And Chester Carlson's garage work is every bit as admirable as Hewlitt and Packard's, but his name is probably confused with cigarettes, while hardly anyone even in Columbus knows what Battelle did.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 3:52 PM  

Oh yeah, James C Maxwell is another example I previously mentioned of a scientist who's contributions can be readily tied to advances that provided societal wealth.

Anyhow, it's clear that you're not emotionally continent enough for rational discourse. I have no interest in kicking around insecure gamma males. I know perfectly well that you're psychologically incapable of admitting that you're wrong even when it is conclusively proved, and therefore you are incapable of dialectic.


See when you start writing things like this, I'm pretty sure you're just trying to work me, b/c it's got an eerie PZ Myers tone to it.

OpenID cailcorishev March 18, 2015 3:54 PM  

Apparently by LGBTs, no. Why, i don't know

Civil unions didn't offend the squares enough. That's what it's all about, not marriages or weddings (no one said they couldn't have weddings, and there were always plenty of liberal ministers willing to do a fabulous ceremony). It's about shoving their weirdness in someone's face -- usually their father's -- and making him eat it and pretend to like it.

OpenID simplytimothy March 18, 2015 4:01 PM  

The persecution complex possessed by some Christians is just getting dull.

Your boredom will end soon enough.

OpenID simplytimothy March 18, 2015 4:16 PM  

OT: Vox it looks like you have gotten under the skin of the folks at National Geographic:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/national-geographic-announces-their-war-on-science/

From the link:Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from climate change to vaccinations—faces furious opposition.

Some even have doubts about the moon landing.


(:

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 4:18 PM  

"I don't deny that science's role gets overstated in the popular culture. But to say it offers nothing is wrong. Even as a flippant remark, it's just wrong."

Naming some miniscule contrabution doesn't cut it. When I say science contributes nothing...I am talking about in totality.

if you pay 10 bucks in taxes... but get 10,000 dollars in welfare... you aren't contributing to the economy. You're a drain.

Science is a drain.

No different than any other wellfare queen.

Anonymous Okies Are Dumb March 18, 2015 4:20 PM  

"Marriage is between a male, a female, and God. Period."

You forgot to include the unicorn. The unicorn, particularly the transparent flying variety are involved alongside GAUDE!!

Hey....the year 1264 is calling, it wants its superstition and ignorance back.

Blogger ray March 18, 2015 4:21 PM  

"You want to see US States stop issuing "marriage" licenses? Ok. Fine. Now what?"


Now what? Well, to start, the Feminist State and its massively funded courts, fem-judgettes, lawyers, marriage 'counselors', anger management clinics, jail guards, social workers, sheriffs, and innumerable more parasites would be out of jobs. Or would have their
'legal' ability to impoverish, disenfranchise, and smash American males severely restricted. Thus, their incomes severely restricted. Some of these vampiric punks would have to get actual productive jobs to remain fed . . . instead of continuing to feed on the boys and men of the west, and call it the law.


Some of you folks should go undercover a few weeks and visit a typical big-city 'family law firm'. Especially the larger firms, with dozens of partners and associates. When you saw the nature of the people who run those places, and what exactly they are doing, and how much money they 'earn' doing it, your advocacy for the State's throttlehold on 'marriage' would quickly end. If you were sane, you'd be a little frightened, too . . . for yourself and others. Few can imagine how hateful, twisted, greedy, and amoral these people are. . . often, they're women who are horridly fat, and gleefully lesbian. These are the empowered monstresses that you've given the nation's sons and dads over to. You think that constitutes 'supporting civilization'? What you're really supporting are the jackals of civilization.

Blogger Noah B March 18, 2015 4:22 PM  

I don't think it gives engineers ideas. They get their ideas from people who think up shit and go "Hey can we make this work?"

I probably have a broader definition of science than most people. To me, thinking shit up and trying to figure out what works best can be considered science whenever that activity is at the forefront of our knowledge. The key is that we perform experiments to compare reality against our expectations. The reason I think of it that way is because the practices of science and engineering can be quite fuzzy and have a great deal of overlap with one another. Most people wouldn't call a housewife trying new cake recipes and looking for faster, cheaper, better ways to make a cake a scientist or engineer, but if she does it on a large enough scale people will call her a food scientist or food engineer.

Blogger Vox March 18, 2015 4:26 PM  

How can you say you never made such an assertion? You wrote this, "Third, I contend this supports my point that the advancement of science is a consequence of societal wealth, not a cause of it."

That's a different statement than, " it does remind me that I have not conclusively demonstrated that science is more a consequence of wealth than a cause of it,"


How? Because that is not the assertion you claimed I made.

"Science doesn't benefit the economy, but rather it's entrepreneurs."

does not equal

"The advancement of science is a consequence of societal wealth, not a cause of it."

And my more recent statement about science being beneficial, but not a primary, secondary, or tertiary cause of economic growth, encompasses the previous one. In the course of proving the newer statement, the truth of the latter will become abundantly clear.

See when you start writing things like this, I'm pretty sure you're just trying to work me, b/c it's got an eerie PZ Myers tone to it.

Not at all. It's a straightforward observation. The amusing thing is that your behavior was predicted by another socio-sexually aware observer even before you exhibited it. Notice your attempt at a less-than-credible passive-aggressive shot. That's your gamma psychology at work. You just can't control your need to posture.

I'm not trying to work you or even push your buttons. If I were doing that, I wouldn't be explaining the difference between these three statements. I'm just explaining why there is no point in trying to engage in dialectical discourse with you. You aren't psychologically capable of it. It doesn't mean you're not intelligent, in fact, gammas tend to be smarter than the norm. It's just that you have a very, very difficult time even taking the chance of being wrong and you're more interested in protecting your self-image than anything else.

I've been down that road too many times to need to repeat the experience. But I am genuinely grateful that you have reminded me I never got around to making the case I always intended to make.

Blogger Marissa March 18, 2015 4:30 PM  

Nate, I never realized you were a "living document" kind of guy.

:: ducks ::

Anyway, it isn't ancient history that you still have to be x numbers of years to run for x office, and live in the country as a citizen x numbers of years for x office. Often, inequality is a good thing.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 4:30 PM  

"You forgot to include the unicorn. The unicorn, particularly the transparent flying variety are involved alongside GAUDE!!"

its ok man. No one is telling you you can't suck all the dicks you want. You can even put on a white dress and have a big ceremony and be super special like you always wanted.

We're just saying you can't call it marriage.

Blogger Noah B March 18, 2015 4:34 PM  

Marissa, it seems that now you only need a laughably obvious fake birth certificate and the approval of the liberal media to brand everyone who states the obvious as a conspiracy theorist. If he were to get the media's support, even Vladimir Putin is eligible now. Our multicultural paradise has finally arrived.

Blogger Marissa March 18, 2015 4:34 PM  

Ha, I didn't even think of our faker-in-chief. Good point.

Blogger Nate March 18, 2015 4:35 PM  

"Nate, I never realized you were a "living document" kind of guy."

I'm not. I'm just pointing out today's legal reality

Blogger Azimus March 18, 2015 4:41 PM  

Could this "no marriage without a religious faith" be turned into a back door (no pun intended) two-edged sword for gays to legally force churches to marry them?

Anonymous Stickwick March 18, 2015 4:47 PM  

Nate: Science offers nothing. Literally nothing. Engineering offers lots... but even engineering is all but useless without the capitalists that bring it to market.

Nate, buddy, you're wrong about this. The modern consumer electronics industry is based on the discovery of the electron and on quantum mechanics. Without these, there would be no transistors, no computers, and no lasers -- and every sort of technology that is based on these products would not exist.

As for engineering, I won't dispute its value, but, again, science has contributed a great deal to marketable technology. The first computer and the first transistor were built by physicists, not engineers.

The first electronic digital computer (the ABC) was built by Iowa State theoretical physicist, John Atanasoff, and his graduate student, Clifford Berry; the ENIAC that followed was based largely off the ABC. The first transistor was built by physicists at Bell Labs. And I'll also throw in the World Wide Web, which was invented by a physicist at CERN to meet the communications needs of the physicists working there.

Then there is the curious case of the fractal antenna, the invention of which blurs the line between physics and engineering. The fractal antenna -- without which your cell phone would not work -- was invented by an astrophysicist named Nathan Cohen, who was a professor at BU at the time. (The dude is versatile -- he's got several patents, and is currently working on an invisibility cloak.) First of all, in a meta-sense, the fractal antenna is based on electromagnetic theory. Second, in all that I've read about Cohen and his inventions, it's difficult to tell whether he's coming up with this stuff as a scientist or as an engineer. The evidence tilts more in favor of the former, since application does not seem to be his primary motivation. He claims that his lab is focused hard on research, and that his inventions are "solutions looking for problems."

Vox has a valid point that, without entrepreneurs and engineers, none of this stuff would be available to the mass market. But to say that science has contributed nothing is provably untrue.

Anonymous Salt March 18, 2015 4:58 PM  

The modern consumer electronics industry is based on the discovery of the electron and on quantum mechanics. Without these, there would be no transistors, no computers, and no lasers -- and every sort of technology that is based on these products would not exist.

Roswell, and reverse engineering.

Anonymous Okies Are Dunb March 18, 2015 5:01 PM  

"its ok man. No one is telling you you can't suck all the dicks you want. You can even put on a white dress and have a big ceremony and be super special like you always wanted"

You goddies always go straight for the dick in mouth slurs. Telling.

In any case, Christianity is just another world view, like Trekkies, gamma maledom and Islam. No skin off the normal people's nose. What's tedious, however is how often you need to be corrected. How would you feel if every time you turn around someone was trying to tell you that Starfleet Regulations trump the constitution and common sense? This is how the normal people feel when you Iron Age-ers keep going on and on about your little God and its petty consternations.

Blogger dw March 18, 2015 5:01 PM  

"The modern consumer electronics industry is based on the discovery of the electron and on quantum mechanics."

Its actually based on the discovery of Megatron in the South Pole, but nice try.

Anonymous Stickwick March 18, 2015 5:13 PM  

Salt: Roswell, and reverse engineering.

dw: Its actually based on the discovery of Megatron in the South Pole, but nice try.

Look, I was trying to be "historically correct," but the truth is, it's all based on ancient aliens visiting the Mayans. Get it together, guys.

Driveby Moron Who Calls Himself 'Okies Are Dumb' Without the Slightest Sense of Irony: In any case, Christianity is just another world view, like Trekkies, gamma maledom and Islam. No skin off the normal people's nose. ... blah blah random drivel blah ... your little God and its petty consternations.

Normal people, eh? Considering that Christians and Muslims and other assorted traditionally religious people make up 90% of the world's population, I'd say we're the normal people. But nice try.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 5:13 PM  

How? Because that is not the assertion you claimed I made.

"Science doesn't benefit the economy, but rather it's entrepreneurs."

does not equal

"The advancement of science is a consequence of societal wealth, not a cause of it."


Agreed, that's why I retracted my statement earlier statement to avoid the confusion. Odd that you insist on being in violent agreement. That's exactly the behavior you are attempting to ascribe to me below. (However the former was what you were asserting back in Apr 2011. My minor error is understandable.)

And my more recent statement about science being beneficial, but not a primary, secondary, or tertiary cause of economic growth, encompasses the previous one. In the course of proving the newer statement, the truth of the latter will become abundantly clear.

Your newer statement is less rigid than your former one, it is in your own word, equivocal. You changed your position b/c the evidence demonstrated you were wrong in Apr 2011.

Not at all. It's a straightforward observation.

It's also wrong. I've admitted when I've been wrong in the past (i.e. Syracuse/Sicily). However, you have spent ample time here denying you were wrong, even as I quote you directly and provide links to those very quotes.

This is settled. More interested in the original subject- State/Church/Family interactions re: marriage

Anonymous rho March 18, 2015 5:20 PM  

The first guy who changed his planting method, or selectively bred his crops or domestic animals, or built a water wheel used science to improve his lot. He didn't call it science, nor did he call it engineering, but he practiced a method that we now call science. VD divides this, I think, into scientistry and scientody--maybe more--but I'm a simple guy and chuck all of it in the same basket.

We include a lot of stuff under the heading of science, and some of it isn't particularly useful. Nobody's going to cure cancer or male-pattern baldness because we know the rate of spin of a quasar. But observation/hypothesis/experimentation is sciencey enough for me, and that's at the core of quite a lot of economic growth.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper March 18, 2015 5:24 PM  

1st, If it passes the law will almost certainly be removed in the Federal courts as they have been cored out since that was the Achilles heel of the system.

2nd, It shouldn't be so long as there is some kind of civil union giving non religious couples equal legal protection.

3rd There isn't much they can do about people getting married in a different state. The body of the Constitution requires that a states respect the acts of other states. Its not an option and if a gay couple moved to Oklahoma, they still remain legally married though ironically can't divorce.

3rd, I looked at the bill and wonder who gets to decide to who qualifies as an ecclesiastical dignitary? Under the law an say an Asatru Godi or Wiccan Priestess marry someone? They believe in divine beings after all.

Anonymous DrTorch March 18, 2015 5:29 PM  

The first guy who changed his planting method, or selectively bred his crops or domestic animals, or built a water wheel used science to improve his lot. He didn't call it science, nor did he call it engineering, but he practiced a method that we now call science.

Agree wholeheartedly. That was a debate/argument at another time. Three crop rotation was developed based on scientific discovery. It obviously provided societal wealth, and was not simply a product of leisure time.

And since we're discussing agriculture, and I've mentioned chemistry and physics, I'll throw out a scientist in that area: Norman Borlaug.

Also a varsity wrestler at U Minnesota. And the NCAA Div I championships start tomorrow! (March MATness) For the record, I'm cheering for UMN's Dylan Ness at 157#.

Blogger Marissa March 18, 2015 5:39 PM  

I'm not. I'm just pointing out today's legal reality

Well that's no fun, I was just trying to get your goat.

Blogger Rabbi B March 18, 2015 5:42 PM  

"Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage," said one of the bill's Republican supporters Rep. Dennis Johnson, though marriage is a legal contract."

Whether this thing gains the amount of traction I would like or whether or not it would ever lead to the State extricating itself from an institution they are unqualified to be a part of, the fact that the above statement is on record in the public discourse is not discouraging.

It is a debate that needs to be opened up. One doesn't have to hold to a Biblical worldview to understand that marriage is not a State institution just because the State decided to hijack it somewhere along the way.

It's broken. They screwed it up royally. It's time for people who give a modicum of a damn to take it back.

Blogger Noah B March 18, 2015 5:44 PM  

"The fractal antenna -- without which your cell phone would not work..."

Or our ankle monitors. Thanks a lot, Dr. Cohen.

OpenID simplytimothy March 18, 2015 5:47 PM  

3rd, I looked at the bill and wonder who gets to decide to who qualifies as an ecclesiastical dignitary? Under the law an say an Asatru Godi or Wiccan Priestess marry someone? They believe in divine beings after all.

The people of Oklahoma will obey the first commandment; strange gods will have to content themselves with other people.

What you are seeing is the continuation of a trend of assertive Christian culture; it will continue.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 18, 2015 5:49 PM  

Sorry it seems like one of my ex boyfriends found out I post here. Okies tell them the only reason you dated me.

Remember when leftists wanted government out of their bedrooms, but not out of other peoples wallets? Now the EPA is coming out with shower monitors. http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-wants-to-monitor-how-long-hotel-guests-spend-in-the-shower/

Blogger kurt9 March 18, 2015 6:01 PM  

Someone here linked to the actual text of the bill. It it really quite reasonable, regardless of one's religious or non-religious beliefs. I fail to see anything controversial about it.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother March 18, 2015 6:22 PM  

Okies Sure Are Dumb reminds me of a spoiled bratty child jumping up and down and wanting attention. Go play with your toys, little boy.

1 – 200 of 261 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts