Over on Dalrock’s toilet of a comment box, we see our Brother Earl declare:
One problem in such discussions is the lexical range of words like ‘marriage’. Not only can that word denote a number of different scenarios, but the difference between such scenarios is so punctuated that the word is nearly a floating signifier.
To Johnathan, the word implies the blessings of the state, upon your union. It implies a marriage license, or at least some sort of notarized statement-of-intent, filed at a courthouse someplace.
The problem with this is that people have been coupling up, monogamously, since prehistory. Natural selection required us to pair-bond and raise children together, as it was the only way for us to reproduce, given the helplessness of the modern human baby. Certainly these unions are more in line with the traditional use of the word ‘marriage,’ than a modern anal marriage between two fags, or a lezbo-feminist “self marriage,” or any of the other examples of perversity and diversity we see regularly on display in this decadent society.
Thus the term ‘marriage,’ properly used, denotes a naturally occurring state of affairs, that surely existed millions of years before anyone dreamt up the Jesus story, and millions of years before The State of California built its first county courthouse and started solemnizing this human trait on the steps. The church and the state can claim the authority to define this term, but only a fool would believe either of them. Human beings will marry, long after the last Christian dies out, and certainly after “The United States” ceases to be.
In a world where so many wimminz have decided to pursue an un-natural and anti-human ideology, like feminism, and where the state has reflected these wimminz choices in new legislation, we might rationally say that the word ‘marriage’ no longer reliably signifies the natural process of coupling.