Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I have heard certain Platonists, Hermeticists, and the like argue that human collectivities often bring into being psychic or subtle entities that represent these communities, but I doubt this is what you mean. So you will have to explain your meaning more fully.

This is pretty close to what I in fact mean. I can imagine myself saying "Society is the sum of individuals" but when I say it, I mean it in the total sense, i.e. that society is analysable like a macroindividual whose constitution has more to it than what directly meets the eye.

Like in case of an ordinary individual, society has its history and future, life and death, body and mind. Society has its head (leadership), arms (civil servants and law enforcement) and the rest of the organs that make up its body. It has its ideals upon which it builds its future. If the ideals lose their significance or are crushed by some force, society will become as if ill, it will lose its hopes for the future and may die. 

In individual human beings, there is a psychological function called subconsciousness. Similarly, members of society share a collective mental ballast. Some aspects of the ballast help the individuals thrive, when they rely on it for self-identity and for living in collective harmony. Other aspects of it may cause some individuals rebel, when they feel traditional or habitual manners either too limiting or meaningless.

In my view, both the disputes over marriage (the nature of the disputes is definitional, i.e. people can't agree what the word means, and even whether it has a meaning at all) and the practice of marriage in the Occident (close to half, in some countries more than half, of children are born out of wedlock) demonstrate that the meaning of marriage has been lost. Marriage has become a burden rather than a blessing. So many people find the institution meaningless that it has become possible for subgroups to attack it and demolish it.

In my view, the point of no return was crossed no less than half a century ago. The gay marriage debates of this century are just an after-effect. I find these disputes futile. Any attempts at policies to "save marriage" are also futile. Absolutely everything in this area was lost already half a century ago, if not earlier. The decadent and wildly popular gay subculture of the 1920's forebode the sinister future for the concept and practice of marriage that has now arrived.

On the other hand, I find it very meaningful to define marriage, its essence and nature, as I always find it meaningful to define the terms we use whenever we say anything. Defined within the context of the holistic structural approach that I have demonstrated in this post, marriage has a strictly social role. At its essence lies the biological reproductive function, which is also social, not individual. It takes no less than two to make a third, so it's an irreducibly social thing, not individual.

All attempts to define marriage in individual terms, to separate it from its social role and function, leave it purposeless, hanging in conceptual mid-air without any support. Such groundless concepts don't have proper legal soundness, so they are of no benefit either to society or individual. Meaningless legal concepts are a sign of rotten society, particularly so when the desintegrated concept should in fact be absolutely vital to society.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I think there is some ambiquity in what you are saying. Whilst at times you seem to be referring to separare existence of society as witnessed in its effects on the members of society, at other times you seem to, as Matthew points out, confuse the metaphorical with the literal. Society does not have a literal corporeal body.

 Now th​ere are intriquing questions about what the apparent fact that society is more than the sum of its individual, corporeal members means about its ontological status. Does it posses some kind of essential nature, and how would any such nature be related to man's nature? Perhaps society, or perhaps the nation, even has some sort of being in its own right that does interact with its corporeal instantiation. But I can see how it can be said that society has a corporeal body or being in the same sense we do.

The ambiguity is only theoretical. You seem to be more interested in determining what kind of ontological status society has when we speak about it in objective terms, whereas I am more interested in observing how society operates regardless how we speak about it.

It's true that society does not have a literal corporeal body, but it's equally true that society can condemn you or celebrate you, make you feel appreciated or rejected, you may live in harmony with society or rebel against it, etc. Just like individual personality in one sense is identical to individual behaviour (i.e. we are to others precisely how we behave), while in another sense our personality is how we would like to behave, all the subjective good intentions we have when doing this or that, and, ontologically, there's no way to separate these two aspects, similarly, society in one sense is the sum of the individuals that make it up and you may be tempted to say it's "nothing but the sum", but in another sense, insofar as society is clearly structured, having leadership and different institutions with distinct rights, powers, and functions, it has a life of its own beyond the will of any individual (the right hand may not know what the left is doing or at other times both hands may rather well be coordinated) - and these two aspects are ontologically inseparable, even though analytically distinct.

I'm just stating facts, I'm not overly concerned about the ontological status of the facts. And there's no ambiguity here, because ontological status is not relevant to the topic.

Say, we take to debate whether marriage is "real", has such-and-such ontological status or whatever. What will we gain? Let's say you defend the claim that marriage has no essential nature and you will win the debate. Will such a claim help people appreciate marriage better? Will it explain why marriage has had the social status that it has had throughout the known history? Not at all.

So, such debate would be entirely beside the point. Therefore I am not ambiguous. I am simply keeping my discussion relevant to the matter at hand.

Different from you, the ontological status of society and of everything in it does not intrigue me at all. I can shut society out of my mind as easily as I can turn off this computer, or I can choose to talk about it as it is in relevant terms. It's just a matter of attention and observation.

iwpoe has been going on about some policies that could work to bring gays "dignity" or such. In my view, dignity is only appropriate when external appreciation is in accord with internal dignity and these both are in accord with natural law. In the context of marriage, gays can have absolutely no dignity at all by the very definition of marriage. Sorry, but this is how it is, if natural law is to be respected.

Of course, legislators are free to ignore natural law, and they are doing it as we speak. What are the political options for traditionalists under such circumstances? As I said, in my opinion the case was lost half a century ago when statistics indicated the implosion of the institution of marriage. It's a consistent demographic trend and no policy can turn this around. The only active thing for traditionalists to do is to acknowledge this fact for what it is - a symptom of a serious internal failure of civilisation - while trying to continue to live with (proper) dignity in married life themselves.

"A symptom of a serious internal failure of civilisation" may sound like a doomsday message. This is what it in fact is. Wilful ignorance of natural law is fatal, or should be, if natural law is a fact and truth.

Such a message has hardly any chance of getting through in self-satisfied consumerist countries like US, UK, Canada, and all major Western European nations. It has a much better chance of resonating with the bulk of population in Eastern European countries, who see themselves as a rare endangered species, but the leadership in those countries is easy to pressure into concession by EU authorities. Russia's regime has already pre-empted the problem. It's sad how this issue has become a marker between totalitarianism and the "free world". This is another reason why this issue is politically irreversibly lost in the West.

iwpoe wrote:

We are in full agreement on principal, but, I've always been primarily thinking with respect to a political situation which forces compromise. The people I've spoken to on Feser's blog about the matter have not properly respected that distinction.

Well, I am like them. I have it very difficult to respect compromise. Principles must never be compromised.

iwpoe wrote:

Am I the only person alive who sees clearly that 'I understand the natural law.' is not the same thing as "I have a functional political programme."? That you understand the ideal does not show that you have any chance of executing it nor even that you have good warrant for trying.

If natural law is not merely an ideal, but also a fact and truth, there's no need to "execute" it. It will effect itself in due time, like a broken leg will bleed and then hopefully heal in some manner. For now, the tide is not in marriage's favour. There's nothing to do to save marriage in the current situation. There is a true definition of marriage, but when people don't want it (they have been rejecting it for at least half a century), there's nothing to do about it. To me it seems that amputation is appropriate here.

It's a part of natural law that when it's not in people's nature to have something, it cannot be force-fed to them. For census, tax, and social care purposes, there are other possible arrangements.

In different countries there are different conditions in place. In Catholic countries like France, Italy, Spain, etc. there have been two marriages for centuries now - one for state purposes, another for religious purposes. In order to be considered married, you must go through the "civil" ceremony. If you belong to a church, you may, *in addition to* the "civil" ceremony, go through the wedding with priest too. These two ceremonies are never mixed up or interchangeable in those countries.

In mostly Protestant countries, including the US, the church often operates de facto on behalf of the state in case of marriage. This makes it a heated problem in those countries, because by changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, the state de facto either forces the recognition of the changed concept on the churches or reduces their power when churches find it impossible to acknowledge the changed concept. Note that in Catholic countries the marriage issue cannot get swollen like this, because there are two distinct ceremonies and the church never operated on behalf of the state.

Then there are countries where laws are set up a certain way, for example there may be a tightly integrated Family Code where marriage is defined, as it is in Germany. In such countries, it may be deemed impractical to redefine marriage. Instead, a similar but separate concept ("cohabitation" in Germany) is instituted in a new law specifically for same-sex couples. Then there are countries where marriage is defined directly in the constitution. Good luck changing that.

iwpoe wrote:

seigneur wrote:

What are the political options for traditionalists under such circumstances?

Quietism, compromise, revolution, and cultural evangelism.

Revolution would more properly be an unpopular junta, when it's conservative. And compromise is the worst kind of option under all circumstances.

iwpoe wrote:

seigneur wrote:

Well, I am like them. I have it very difficult to respect compromise. Principles must never be compromised.

Well, that's fine for you, but what would one possibly do as a politician with that policy? I understand perfectly well that this is why people don't like politicians, but no one of them, on his own, can avoid compromise and remain in a position of power without luck and compromise by others.

So you are a professional politician? My condolences. Sincerely.

When you are some faction leader or such, it's hard to avoid compromises indeed, because that's precisely the job of negotiating compromises, but if you are not, it should be somewhat possible to keep a clean voting record in matters of principle.

iwpoe wrote:

I have a principal. I agree to put the execution of principals in the public sphere up to vote. The majority votes against my principal. I acquiesce to the will of the majority.

It doesn't end there. If you are principled, you step down and refuse to administer the policy.

iwpoe wrote:

seigneur wrote:

If natural law is not merely an ideal, but also a fact and truth, there's no need to "execute" it. It will effect itself in due time, like a broken leg will bleed and then hopefully heal in some manner.

Then what's the point of having political arguments at all?

Masses never rule themselves spontaneously. There will always be active leaders of some sort or another, and to be a leader, you have to make yourself heard as such. In a democracy, the political arguments between politicians are supposed to reflect the needs of the population, so you have to take demographic trends into account, which is a sign of a pragmatic politician in any case. Statistics tend to indicate that marriage in natural law sense is extinct. What's the purpose of trying to keep an extinct concept alive? What practical utility does marriage serve for the state or for the people? If there are other concepts that do the job equally well, marriage can safely be forgotten and be supplanted by those other concepts.

Can you formulate concretely, in practical terms, what purpose would your proposed policies serve? Leave any sort of self-refuting idealism out of it, like "monogamy for gays" or such. That thing serves no practical purpose. Gays have absolutely no use for monogamy, and nobody else will gain anything if gays got monogamous, which they never will anyway.