D said:

“If we are talking about CHRISTIAN marriages...we speak in terms of the marriage being an reflection and/or image of the God-as-Trinity and God-Creation relationships that exist, empowered by the Holy-Spiritual Presence of Christ. I would argue that male-female pairings have more potential to express all of the interpenetration, intimacy, mutuality, and fecundity of the One Triune God and the beauty of unity in diversity (ala sexuality complementarity and distinctions, potential for natural childbirth and family creation, etc)...therefore, male-female pairings are closer to the "eschatological essence" of what CHRISTIAN marriage is to be than same-sex pairing.

If we are talking about same-sex pairing people wanting the legal right to marry each other (like by the State), I don't see the problem with that. I would agree with the President and VP on that, I guess.”

Brandon:  I would ask about whether the first part applies to the second part. In other words, a part recognizing something as a marriage is the sexually complementarity and distinctions. That is not only do we have the question of sexual complementarity and distinctions but we also have the issue of the prerequisite of a union or marriage being limited to two not three or four. Also, where would you fit incestuous relationships in there? Should the State legalize that too? Maybe the state should stay out of marriage altogether and allow some sort of institution to legitimize that as well?

Believe me, that really isn’t that far fetched.

Asher: First, the organizations are free associations of individuals...coming together to further their causes and beliefs, and to fellowship with like minded people...that's why there can co-exist "Traditional marriage groups", "Non-traditional marriage groups" or people that don't recognize ANY of THOSE groups. When you ask "Why even have THESE organizations?" you are missing what I mean by them...it's as if you think I am saying society SHOULD HAVE these groups...then you are kind of asking of me, the question I asked of you "What legitimizes the organization or state that legitimizes marriage?" but that is missing my whole point! These are not organizations that have ANY official sanction by state or society. It's just like-minded people taking joint action. Society is not homogenous, therefore society cannot officially sanction ANY such group without favoring a specific viewpoint...IOW, leaders of societies FORCING their viewpoints on other who do not share their viewpoint. And the same applies to state sanctioning. SO, "Why even have THESE organizations?"...because individual people WANT them. Your average person does not want to have to think through every single issue that comes up for debate within society...however, they do have a vague-ish nascent perspective from which they more or less operate...and they can often point to certain leaders or organizations and identify with them. Now, if those organizations began to stray too far from the implicit viewpoint, the people supporting those organizations would just stop supporting them. But again...it's individual action happening here, not societal or state action.

-------------------------- 

Brandon: The question was more rhetorical. Much like your imaginary organization, called, "Not officially recognized by anyone" group. Anyone who follows sphere sovereignty would recognize sphere sovereignty realizes those organizations as naturally coming together. Those are an extension of civil society or actually are a part of civil society. The question was in connection/contrast to the other part where I ask: "Why not let two individuals just come out and declare themselves married with no interruptions from ANYBODY?"

I’m not asking about why they should exist at all, I’m asking why they should exist to sanction something, when any two individuals could sanction something without them! OK…so those groups can form and organize and associate to further their causes and beliefs, and have “fellowship” with other like minded persons. Again, you won’t hear any sphere sovereignty person disagreeing with this. My question was then asked if you had any problem with two individuals declaring something to be. Don’t worry about the organizations or groups. I’m asking if you think any two or more individuals can come together and simply declare something to be. From what I’m gathering, you are saying that any two or more people coming together could, simply by declaration, declare something to be and viola! It is. So, if a incestuous relationship wants to call themselves a marriage? Well then it is, simply because they declared it so. Now remember, we are talking about ANY TWO OR MORE persons and things ie., property, and entities ie., corporations. Think about the many kinds of relationships that could potentially be called, marriages if this is the case and the extended implications in terms of consequences, ie., benefits, children, rights to property, etc. And this is where the problem lies. Because you want to say that people can come together and call something a marriage ie., whether its two lesbians or groups, say, even a group called, “Untraditional Marriage Group.” Even the group coming together could call itself a marriage within your framework! What I’m asking about is not sanctioning, but about RECOGNIZING. Your rule says, that first there is a rule and that THAT rule says, “If someone says, this is a marriage, then it’s a marriage. You may disagree, but whatever you do? You can’t use force to say, ‘YOUR relationship is not a marriage.’” So in effect you are actually telling me to IGNORE what my conscience tells me is otherwise. You are effectively telling me I cannot recognize something for what it is. Excuse my language dude, but that’s pretty fucked up.

--------------------------

Brandon: "Why not let two individuals just come out and declare themselves married with no interruptions from ANYBODY?"

Asher: That's exactly what I DO MEAN! It's no interruption from an organization blessing an action, when you are in agreement with the goals and beliefs of that organization. To have that organization bless your endeavor is to advertise your event in such a way that OTHER like-minded people will recognize it quickly, without having to research all the aspects of it themselves. It's to raise a standard flag, so comrades can see it, rally around it, and join themselves to your cause. Those organizations have no authority or power, other than the authority and power that is freely given to them by like-minded individuals. And that's why some people wouldn't recognize ANY such organizations. But it is possible to co-exist in a society with all those viewpoints being represented. So there is no oxymoron at all.

Brandon: Yes. I understand that. I know the organization or group is going to recognize it and bless it as such. What I’m saying is, if two people who want to declare themselves married, then they are married by declarative fiat, correct? According to your understanding? So, let’s say you have a “wife” who is “married” in this way. They have a problematic marriage, and they have an affair, and are treated 10 times better by the person they are having an affair with. Say this “wife” and her partner whom she had an affair with want to continue the relationship as husband and wife. She declares herself married to the partner whom she had an affair with. Who is she “married” too? Is she married to two men now? It doesn’t matter that the first man she was married to is emotionally bruised (harm?) After all, if the State was involved he would be bruised regardless. So the harm factor really doesn’t come into play here because well, it really doesn’t matter as long as she is free to walk away and declare something dead and something else alive. There is no force being used in any way shape or form. So, does she now have one husband, the guy she had an affair with or is she still married to the first guy or is she married to both. Maybe that’s what she’ll want to do is declare herself as married to both parties at the same time as long as they concede?

--------------------------------------

Brandon: "But once you start to form these you've essentially started to fundamentally do what courts and society do."

Asher: Au Contraire, mon frere! Refer above...these organizations have no authority except that freely given...and if you are someone who disagrees with that organization it has ZERO authority for you. When courts act or societies act politically...they are very much acting as if they have authority over you...now in this case it is the authority of "force" not freely given consent. Which is tyranny, and always has been.

Brandon: I had also said this: “They are in fact mini-societies who recognize the legitimacy of the relagionship. But what would be problematic with two individuals declaring themselves married when they said so? Do you not have any problems with this?” So what I’m saying is what I said above. Yes, people are free to join such organizations. If they don’t feel the need to further causes or have support, then they could simply declare themselves as a particular relationship. But if say they join an organization to SANCTION that particular relationship, they are in fact doing what the courts and society presently do and that is recognize them as legitimate. Simply that that’s all.

----------------------------

Brandon: "They are in fact mini-societies who recognize the legitimacy of the relagionship."

Asher: This can get confusing...because sometimes "society" means FREELY JOINED INDIVIDUALS...and sometimes "society" means "mini-societies within a larger society that have declared themselves the anointed, and act with political force to further their objectives" The first we'll call society (subscript A) and the second society (subscript B). And as long as we are talking about "society (subscript A)" then there is NO PROBLEM whatsoever with mini-societies recognizing the legitimacy of the relationship. They have no FORCE over you if you disagree. It only becomes problematic if the mini-societies are operating under the means of "society (subscript B)" IOW, using political force to further their own agenda.

Brandon: All I’m saying Asher, is that for the individuals who want to have a particular relationship recognized and sanctioned, then these organizations and mini-societies will act to legitimize those individual’s relationships. But again, as pertaining to what I said above at first, there is a rule for all groups and that rule is that no one can say something is not a marriage. They can’t "recognize" legitimately. Not where it really matters. Of course they aren’t sanctioning. One group doesn’t sanction the other group. Again, all of us are sitting at the table: Groups A, B, C, D, E, F. A doesn’t sanction B or C, D and E. B doesn’t sanction A, C, D, E and so forth. All those groups are what they are. This is a school, this is a bank, this is a union, this is a symphony, this is a family, this is a marriage, etc. Ultimately, my problem is when you say, “A” can say of “B” that is not a marriage but if “B” wants to declare themselves a marriage, then “A” can’t force their view on “B” by consequences, penalties, etc. My problem is:

A. Where did this rule come from? This rule that says we cannot legitimately RECOGNIZE something that is what it is where it really counts??? Are things what they are or NOT?
B. Is this rule not FORCED on ALL GROUPS? It is! So again, you are telling me a priori that I can’t effectively call or say something what it is. That is the height of absurdity all for the sake of a presumption of “no force on anyone” Agggh…C’mon! Do you not see the extended problems by way of implication with this?

-----------------------------

Brandon: "But what would be problematic with two individuals declaring themselves married when they said so? Do you not have any problems with this?"

Asher: No problem. No...and Yes. I recognize that they can do it and act upon it, even if I disagree with them. As long as they are not using force to make me agree with them or support their viewpoint...they can do whatever. No, I may personally totally disagree with their viewpoint and I may publicly say so...and that's fine too...as long as I don't use force to make them agree with or support my viewpoint. By simply letting them be...I am not condoning their actions. This is the ONLY way to peace! And this is why we don't have peace! Because everyone wants to force their viewpoints on everyone else. Straight, gay...they are no different in wanting to take control of the reins of force and then run over their opponents.

Brandon: Stop. Right there. This is not about forcing or imposing one’s viewpoint upon others but is about recognizing what is and not enforcing it upon something that isn’t and vice versa. Go to the table again. Group “A” says, “We are tea kettles. We are tea kettles because of this and this criteria” Group “B” says, “We are tea kettles, even though our criteria is different than Group “A.” You are essentially saying that it is a wrong use of force to say, “No, Group B, you are not a tea kettle, but a Pot.” Even if Groups, A, C, D, E, F all agree that Group B is a Pot they have no right to enforce their view on “B.” Even if “B” and “C” which is a frying pan agree together to recognize each other as tea kettles, A, D, E, F all may PERSONALLY disagree, and may even voice it, their words are merely a clanging symbol. There really is no power behind what they say. And so if say a group of workers and a corporation want to call themselves a family, then so be it. And that Asher is completely absurb, especially as it relates to the implications of a failure to recognize something in reality. In fact, this is the height of injustice. Because, as I have been saying is that all these entities within civil society and the government are all vying for power of/over the other.

-------------------------

Asher: The libertarian alternative is to just lay down the reins! Here's an analogy! I just finished rewatching the whole Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies. It is a GREAT libertarian philosophic tool! What causes all the problems in Middle Earth? The One Ring! There are 3 elven rings, 7 dwarven rings, and 9 human rings...and the One Ring to rule them ALL! Now, what we see is different levels of enlightenment (just like in real life). Nearly everyone is tempted by the power of the One Ring! The elves, dwarfs and humans joined in a massive alliance against the dark forces controlled by the One Ring. This is shown in a flashback to a previous battle in history of Middle Earth...and Isildor (a human) cuts off Sauron's hand that has the One Ring on it's finger. The elf leader takes Isildor to the volcano from which all the rings were forged...so he can throw it in and destroy it. But Isildor is tempted by the power he'll command if HE wears the One Ring...so he refuses to destroy it. Now, the elf then gets all down on humankind because they are "weak" , he would have thrown the ring in the volcano. Right? Well, what we don't see him doing while he is right there is throwing his elven ring (one of three) in the volcano. So, actually this scene just shows the elf's hypocrisy. Yeah, sure, he doesn't want the One Ring to exist. It's too powerful....and incidentally RULES his ring. He just doesn't want a ring to rule his ring! So, Sauron, elves, dwarves, humans...ALL are in fellowship (of the rings) because they are like minded to some degree....they want the power to rule. To rule others. Now, notice...what race doesn't even have a ring? The hobbits! The hobbits are good libertarians. They don't want a ring. Sure there are natural leaders within their society. People that are trusted and have shown themselves to be wise. But there is no political force in hobbit society. No one that wears a ring to rule hobbits. And even when a single hobbit does happen to come into possession of the One Ring...it is largely left unused, except to do simple parlor tricks, like disappear! There is the One Ring in the shire, left unused for it's primary purpose...to rule! And that Ring is passed down to his relative...who once finding out exactly what that Ring is, and it's purpose...seals himself to a quest to destroy it. And a small group of individuals...some hobbits, some humans, an elf, and a dwarf...band together to aid the hobbits objective...and they become The Fellowship of the Ring...whose purpose is the opposite of the other group. This is the libertarian alternative!

Brandon: But you tend to see this only with government. I’ve said, that because you’ve seen this primarily in your life time as government holding the power, then government itself is ultimately bad. I’ve echoed what Skillen said. NOBODY holds that power but One. God. All are under God. Whether we acknowledge it or not.

Skillen (with specific regard for religion):

“Those who believe that human beings ought to honor God should consequently, take the crucial step of differentiating their public moral argument as follows. First, they should argue theologically that out of respect for God’s true omnipotence, the government of a political community SHOULD NOT even try to exercise omnicompetent authority. That is its first act of humility as a servant of God. In fact, government ought to acknowledge that it would perpetuate injustice within its jurisdiction if it tried to compel the consciences of its citizens in all respects.”

And later:

"From a biblical point of view, both the historical differentiation of society and the pervasively religious character of human life are inherent in the creation’s meaningful dependence on the Creator. If God’s authority encompasses the entire creation, and if human beings, along with every other creature, have their meaning in this context, then obviously all of life is religiously tied to God, and no single institution or community on earth can function as the all-encompassing master or integrator of human society."

And

"The historical clarification of this truth began at the beginning of Israel’s independence--in the exodus from Egypt. The God of the covenant displayed supremacy over the supposedly omnicompetent kingdom of the pharaohs. Egypt, like many other ancient kingdoms was organized around the myth of a universal community under a monarch who represented divinity. The God who liberated Israel from Egypt showed that every earthly kingdom and monarch exists by the grace of the one true God. Only God’s kingdom is universal and omnicompetent. Moses was not a master monarch but a subordinate steward of the divine covenant. Moses was not an autocrat; he served under God’s authority. Moses was not even omnicompetent within Israel; God’s law made clear that priests and parents and other authorities each had distinguishable responsibilities before their Creator/Redeemer.”

----------------------------

Brandon: "B. If individuals enter into a state of "marriage" then any relationship that calls itself a marriage is actually a marriage?"

Asher: What do you mean by actually? For those people who have entered into this "state of marriage" then, yeah, it's a marriage. But you don't have to recognize it as such! If they aren't holding you at gunpoint saying "Bless our marriage" ...and you aren't holding them at gunpoint saying "No, you are NOT married!" What's the fuss? They can live, and you can live...with both those viewpoints co-existing peacefully. I don't mean by that that you aren't in opposition, you can register opposition. There is also NO PROBLEM with that. It's only when either side picks up a "ruling ring" and wants to exert power over philosophic opponents that we have THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM...far greater in importance than who is married and who is not married!

Brandon: Nope. Go back to my examples above. You have effectively silenced me and the rest of the groups who would disagree with you. I don’t even get to say what Skillen said above, that its not just a matter of recognizing relationships for what they are, but that those relationships have concrete responsibilities and are authorities in the world before their Creator. PERSONALLY, I could, but where it REALLY COUNTS, your rule is the one we are all told to follow.

--------------------------------

Asher: Your point C is only a problem because there is an established use of the "Ring". There is a political office within society that has been invested with the "Ring"...and society is a little more sophisticated that earlier primitive societies...they have invested THE OFFICE with the "Ring" not a particular individual.

Brandon: No. GOD is invested with THE RING. Right? The rest have their own rings given some of that authority. Government, marriage, family, police, banks, etc. I recognize along with you that any one group who holds THE RING is not acting humbly before their Creator.

-------------------------------

Asher: And they vote, so that different sides each can possibly get a chance to control the "Ring" and attack their political opponents with it! Democracy in action! And each side does everything they can, by hook or by crook, to keep themselves in that OFFICE so they can control the "Ring" longer...and thus GET THEIR WAY running right over the top of any and all opponents who may disagree with them.

Brandon: Yes. I agree with this as far as everyone attempting to use THE RING. I would also say that each ring cannot and should not attempt to use their derived power as if they are the power of THE RING. But I don't have problems there being other rings that derive their authority and power FROM THE RING.

But that’s a potential problem for EVERYONE. Not just one group. The power of THE RING works in and through every other ring which is the problem that sphere sovereignty points out. Its a good thing gone bad. This wanting to be LIKE GOD, to act like God is a problem for all authorities.

------------------------------

Brandon: "D. I think the failure here is that by every group being their own entity you are basically telling us to recgnize that as a legitimate marriage. You are saying, "Brandon, you have to recognize this as a marriage" thus forcing me to go against my conscience."

Asher: NO! I am not saying "Brandon, you have to recognize this as a marriage"...I am saying "Brandon, you have to recognize that THEY recognize this as a marriage"

Brandon: “But what is it?” is the question? See, in my framework persons and relationships have GOD-GIVEN authority and responsibility. So a particular relationship because of the nature of that relationship will have some particular authority and some particular responsibility. Sorry, it isn't Nazism to recognize certain kinds of relationships as this and not that. That's just using your God given brain power.

-------------------------------

Asher: The way I've laid out allows each and every viewpoint to co-exist, without compromise, as long as none use force. Your viewpoint means that there is some segment of society that is having viewpoints it doesn't agree with FORCED upon it. You want to use the "Ring" to have your viewpoint politically institutionalized. But in the very next moment, a different segment of society may control the "Ring" and they'll then use the "Ring" to try to get their viewpoint politically institutionalized. And again, there are different levels of enlightenment...for example, you are kind of weighing different perspectives, you see that there is no one viewpoint that has a lock philosophically on this argument, so your use of the "Ring" may be softer and lighter than some other people's use of the "Ring"...but still yet, you want to use the "Ring".

Brandon: No. It isn't. We all make distinctions and judgments about what something is. If my viewpoint attempts to do that then that is a good thing. If A and B want to have a relationship they can. What is immoral and unjust is if A and B call their relationship something it is not. I don't care what they say Asher, no amount of telling, shouting, screaming, to C, D, E, F is going to make that relationship what they say it is. If A is an employee and B is an employer, I could careless how much they tell the world that their relationship is a family, it isn’t. And it is that that needs to be reflected in law with all its attendant implications.

-------------------------------

Brandon: "Now, essentially your rule is that each of these relationships are to be considered legitimate marriages by everyone including myself."

Asher: NOPE! Look, I understand, that until someone sees the libertarian alternative for what it is...it is easy for them to say exactly what you just said in this sentence...but it just isn't the case. There is no ONE RING LEGITIMACY that rules them all! You can agree or disagree with ANY of those relationships being called a "marriage". And any of those people can disagree with you. And if you can cooperate in any way with any of them, then fine...but if not, fine...you can all go your own way...as long as NO ONE uses force AT ALL!

Brandon: Again, there is also the authority question and the responsibility question. The fact of what they are doesn’t stay within a protective zone of those just those two. It transcends outward and affects the rest of the community just by their very nature.

--------------------------------

Brandon: "But the point is is that you are REALLY asking me to recognize the rule that anyone can call their relationship what they want and I have to recognize it as such."

Asher: NOPE! Look...using the rules you are arguing for, I can imagine this scenario...you and your wife live in a Nazi-type society. In an effort to accomplish racial purity you are deemed by that society (All duly appointed authorities) "unfit" for racial stock...whereas, your wife is declared prime breeding stock...the state unilaterally dissolves your "marriage" and forces your wife to marry within race...or worse, to serve in racial advancement brothels. The very rules you are arguing for can serve this purpose. Because, although there may be different levels of enlightenment...Sauron/Hitler...the elf ruler/you...you are all united in wanting to use the "Ring"

Brandon: Because you are misunderstanding the power of THE RING and its relationship with and between the other rings. This, again, can happened with all derivative rings. I’m not, nor have I ever said that it can’t happen with the ring called, “government.” This tendency exists with all rings--to rule like THE RING.

Here is what Jonathan Chaplin said at Cardus http://www.cardus.ca/policy/article/2370/:

Brandon: "The rule is is that the only rule there is is that no one can say, "This is not a marriage." I don't see how you AREN'T saying that."

Asher: I'm not, whether you see it or you don't. You can say all you want "This is not a marriage" All you can't do is use force to make them also say "This is not a marriage"

Brandon: Then it pretty much means gobbly gook, Asher. Because when we start talking about rights, responsibilities and authority of a particular, person or relationship there is much more at stake then just semantics.

---------------------------------

Brandon: "Who made this rule up? Why should I have to obey it, especially if I think its absurb and ridiculous? Why do you or whoever made up this rule get to impose this on the rest of us?"

Asher: There is no rule there! The only thing you have to obey is to not use force against anyone else. And if your question is "Why should I have to obey THAT rule?" then our discussion is at an end...I'll quite know where you stand. And you'll know where I stand. Or maybe you won't! But at minimum you'll know I oppose you, even if you don't know why.

Brandon: I know where you stand Asher. Everyone has the right to not be forced to call something they don’t want to call it no matter how absurd and ridiculous. And this to me is unjust. Employees can’t make the same claims against employers, even though both of them may call their relationship a family, that families which actually ARE families make toward each other. From a sphere sovereignty point of view, there is a rule there.

---------------------------------

Brandon: "If we are as intertwined through relationships that we are in, then this becomes especially problematic when we are talking about benefits, jobs, housing, children, etc. "

Asher: Yes, all those things are problematic already. But not because the things I have been saying are what is typical of society...they are problematic because society is exactly the way you are arguing for...again, sure there are differences in enlightenment...Sauron vs elves...but society already operates the way you are pushing for...it's just that those who have been in control of the "Ring" happen to disagree with you and have forced their way on you...and you don't like it...and your answer to your dissatisfaction is for YOU, or someone who thinks like you to wield the "Ring" instead of them. And I'm sitting on the side, with the hobbits...wanting to destroy the damn RING!

Brandon: I don’t want to wield THE RING. I want to wield the derived ring that I am and have both an authority and responsibility for.

Asher: Ultimately, I think we just believe God is a different person. God created us with free will...so free that we can even resist Him. That's not the kind of being who forges a Ring. God is more a father or lover than king or ruler.

Asher: You're gonna appeal to God again...but not every "speaker for God" agrees together about these issues. Should an individual submit to the word of a "speaker for God" even if they disagree? And what do they do when there are multiple "speakers for God"...who do they submit to? And what if you have two sets of married couples...each themselves "speakers for God" and they disagree?

Brandon: You are free to disagree and I am free to disagree. You are free to work for change and so am I. But I’m afraid those who disagree with making these distinctions run the risk of creating an injustice--which is happening in many other ways on many other issues presently. And it’s a fine line between a group saying, “We are this and not that over there!" and said group getting rights and benefits as the other group.

-------------------------------------------

Asher: Who has the right to say for everyone what is a marriage? Whoever won the last election? And then the definition can be changed again when a different group wins next time?

Brandon: I think you are missing the point. All I’m saying is that elves in elfdom are given the responsibility to work this stuff out--identifying things and protecting them so that they carry out what God intends for them to do. If definitions change, concerning a certain relationship, in a democracy, people should work towards justice--given how I understand justice.

-----------------------------------------------

Asher: See, your whole philosophy still just resorts to force. You believe you're right, and have no problem forcing the submission of others when they disagree with you.

Brandon: Of course there is some force, the state is to act judicially, but I guess you could say in this case what we’ve said on these boards for years--it is acting judicially for a greater good purpose.

------------------------------------------------

Asher: Maybe you're not an elf after all...

Brandon: Nope. I’m definitely an elf. I just don’t want some other elf telling me and in effect, silencing me by their insistence that they are what I am and then expecting all the attendant benefits and rights that I have.