Friday, August 25, 2017

Ideal Marriage --that's the one without sex in it ?

Marriage without sex ---towards the concept of perfect marriage
Here’s one definition I’d like to focus on
When the whole is , not only much greater than the sum of the parts, but takes us well beyond the parts.
Bob Katter on ABCthedrum said in August 2017 what many of us feel about what we perceive to be an abuse of the term marriage as applied to human beings. His casual honest average bloke style seems to make him a good spokesman for this concept because there is no completely rational way to talk about the subject when we humans talk it. (Enough said)
The bottom line is for me , he was saying what many of us feel-- that the changing of the definition of human marriage to include those who don’t risk the responsibility of  human products (children )would weaken its very high status for the future .
What then is a perfect marriage ?
Here is a perfect marriage of stone and steel
so is Bob right to get all fussed about the loss of meaning for the word marriage?  
I think Bob’s ’s right to get upset because the word is so good it can be used to describe many wonderful things and It should be used to describe the best thingsthe really creative things

This is the way it has been used as it has been for eons (as high ideal binder)- even in the civil marriage ceremony where love is not the issue. The focus of civil marriage can, has been and should be in the context of human beings with the potential for children - its special and specific focus –After all marriage is the stuff that holds us all together ( you me and the government

What’s natural in all this ?
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts is nothing new to nature. Both inorganic and organic processes create new identities that are bigger and different in character from the parts. molecules from atoms, cells from organelles.  Even the most humble things like rocks, water and sun move in predictable way to create the beyond . I would not call their relationship marriage.  

Marriage as unpredictable dangerous creativity

As blokes like Bob might say “ There has to be spark  to get a good marriage”. But are not  the spark and the fire ,  like your faith or worldview , plain dangerous – they press in on practice in the household and if they don’t work --people involved get burned . I will be the first to vote that governments can have a limited role in idealizing marriage,  but because it’s dangerous,  sound governments have to focus firstly on the people who get burned from it   - this is mainly  women and children , The statute for Civil marriage has been and always should be mainly focused on them

The Creative element
Hers my working definition of marriage without sex. It’s when the whole is, not only much greater than the sum of the parts, but takes us well beyond the parts.
No married couple ever knows what they are going to get from being committed to each other. They may have 2 or twenty kids, say 2 really nice ones and one rebel. Either way marriage is the strong frame that holds both them and us (via government) to care for them when the damage from the danger needs repairing .

Can government s have role in encouraging high ideals? Of course, education is more effective than law. The current preoccupation of the left with the law is a sign of widespread despair about how to educate-  watch them; they think coercion and that’s dangerous. No modern western party today can easily countenance education about ideals because there appears to be no consensus over a basis for morality -just tit for tat over items under dispute  

Is there a bottom line for government involvement in ideals?   Yes, there is still a consensus of sort s over some things.  Libertarians AGREE that government should be involved as little as possible in legislating – let alone legislating about love.
Choice options for libertarians when there is diversity --
1 Create uniformity
The pigs in animal farm used a shallow consensus about a lack of equality in decision-making on the farm to tip the government out. It wasn’t a sound revolution but just a grab for power justified in the name of superficial inequity.  
2.  Respect for Authority and authorship
The other ideal of husbandry was thrown out quickly in animal farm, not on the basic of actual abuse but ideal abuse. The super ideal of self-centeredness power and survival of the smartest (well-hidden by the pigs) got its way of doing things for a while. Such simplistic hypocritical moves don’t last long because no one really effectively considered in that mindset, the needs of everyone under such tyranny.  The movers and shakers of change for change sake (the ultimate progressives?) often  turn out to be change for my sake opportunists.
When no one is really serious about the tiring job of restoring some equity in opportunity or distribution, fair governance simply doesn’t happen.
3. Don’t bother to care When the bush lawyers want to find an excuse for not caring, they often make it seem like caring is too hard, Luke 10:25-29    Invoking dog eat dog determinism also needs kid gloves to get a hearing and quietly ignores the idea of parenting and self control etc

We should agree not to be easily persuaded by the use of  that equality
word . We need to use law ONLY to do what government needs to do (and is necessary)  to protect and frame all the marriages in the country, we do this by having a full house debate or plebiscite on this  – to protect women and children and establish the rights and responsibilities of fathers and governments to look after those children and widows or people displaced from its security .

I don’t think anyone should bully us into changing the meaning of the word just because it suits them.
We have a few months to decide whether we are going to water down the explosive potential of a word that captures the wonder of the unknown result of sexual creativity.
In my opinion, we are not that smart that we can say the West, which is following this current noise about widening its definition, really knows what it is doing.  
In fact, it’s clear to me the opposite; the West is lost in a desperate search for goodwill that confuses need with want and sacrifices its commitment to natural diversity with simplistic idealistic clauses about imposed equity.
Our children will pay a huge price for this no sense doctrine in unstable government until they /we re-establish resilience and respectful ( diversity is OK) reason on this  .
Australia will lead the world if it votes No to change


  1. Yes campaigners complain that there are " no ( proven) consequences from just saying yes to a very simple question .Their approach to science is faulty because you don't learn and see the future that way. You are way behind that way.

  2. yes campaignersd ont have any evidence for their presumption about the future. "LGBTI people will feel better if we do this and so will we" . Its said to a win win situation " Wont cost us a thing In predictable science practice its what you don't do with pushy noisy never happies- because they may never be happy with what they get - a little bit of power corupts and when that power doesn't work ( eg to generate fluid gender concepts amongst the 30% of laggards in the community the powerful can be expected to become fanatical .

  3. "LGBTI people will feel better if we do this and so will we"