"And I agree, the State has no business regulating Marriage at all. As long as everyone consents it's none of the state's business."
When it comes to "regulating marriage", the state (which is a reification) is acting as a proxy for that other great reification, society. So, to assert that "the State has no business regulating Marriage at all" is just another way of asserting (the falsehood) that society has no interest in marriage.
Does society have no interest in ensuring that children are entitled to the spiritual and material support of identified adults (i.e. a father and a mother)? Does society have no interest in ensuring that women are not used as sexual conveniences when they are nubile and then discarded when they are not? Does society have no interest in ensuring that men are not used as walking wallets when they are financially successful and then discarded when they are less so?
Does society have no interest in everyone understanding all along *which* woman, of all the women a man may have f[oricated], is automatically entitled to his estate? Does society have no interest in everyone understanding all along *which* child, of all the children a man may have "fathered", is automatically entitled to his estate?
Does society have no interest in everyone understanding all along *which* man, of all the men a woman may have f[oricated], is automatically entitled to exercise power of attorney which she is incapacitated by a stroke?
To assert the foolish platitude that "the State has no business regulating Marriage at all" is just to say, "let's burn everything down!" But then, burning everything down has *always* been what leftism is all about.
4 comments:
And I agree, the State has no business regulating Marriage at all. As long as everyone consents it's none of the state's business.
To be filed under the category "A cloud no bigger than a man's hand", note the second to last bullet:
"Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner"
a.k.a, polygamy
Ahh.. but I thought we were assured there would be no Slippery Slope, and why were we bringing up such groundless fears?
"And I agree, the State has no business regulating Marriage at all. As long as everyone consents it's none of the state's business."
When it comes to "regulating marriage", the state (which is a reification) is acting as a proxy for that other great reification, society. So, to assert that "the State has no business regulating Marriage at all" is just another way of asserting (the falsehood) that society has no interest in marriage.
Does society have no interest in ensuring that children are entitled to the spiritual and material support of identified adults (i.e. a father and a mother)? Does society have no interest in ensuring that women are not used as sexual conveniences when they are nubile and then discarded when they are not? Does society have no interest in ensuring that men are not used as walking wallets when they are financially successful and then discarded when they are less so?
Does society have no interest in everyone understanding all along *which* woman, of all the women a man may have f[oricated], is automatically entitled to his estate? Does society have no interest in everyone understanding all along *which* child, of all the children a man may have "fathered", is automatically entitled to his estate?
Does society have no interest in everyone understanding all along *which* man, of all the men a woman may have f[oricated], is automatically entitled to exercise power of attorney which she is incapacitated by a stroke?
To assert the foolish platitude that "the State has no business regulating Marriage at all" is just to say, "let's burn everything down!" But then, burning everything down has *always* been what leftism is all about.
Well, is *ANYTHING* ever enough for a woman?
Post a Comment