Seven of the fifty states in the Union have made it illegal for a non-related penis and vagina to dwell in the same household. North Dakota is one of the seven:
"The North Dakota law has been on the books since statehood [1889], and lists cohabitation as a sex crime, along with rape, incest and adultery... The attempts at repeal failed in the last two legislative sessions."
This is one of my Libertarian polemics against Social Conservatism. Any one of you neo-cons wanna remark on this?
Note: Tracy Potter is a historian and personal friend of mft's.
Posts
20 comments:
You mean they require incest if corresponding body parts must belong to relatives, right? That explains the quality of the legislative genes, I supose.
Still, not being such a strict libertarian, I think this is not so terribly bad for 1880. Of course Pepe's ancestors were already making porn in those days...
Stop using this bullshit They-Lived-In-A-Different-Time to qualify absurdity. I think I recollect you doing this with slavery a while back, yet I could find a shit-ton of primary historical sources that railed against that Peculiar Institution. But that's another tangent.
It's tough enough trying to eek out an existence in this state, and if two people wanna room together coed style, what business is it of yours? KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!
1880=2007?
There was plenty of penis and vagina cohabitation in the 1880s. I'd have to do more digging, but one might be able to argue that the law was intended — in part — to wed Natives with Christian ceremony (another legal justification to Christianize them). Anglo-Americans were largely running the show at that time anyhow. This also could have been used to force immigrants into wed-lock and perhaps settlement.
The individuals you really had to keep your eye on were the Self Righteous who warned of the Heathenish threats from Soddom and Gomorrah. For example, see the Righteous, revolver-swinging John M. Chivington and the Sand Creek Massacre. That Chivington cock-sucker preached "morality," yet somehow found it necessary to slaughter some 800 Cheyenne who were told they were under the protection of the U.S. Government. This is the problem with neo-Cons: Limbaugh and O'Reilly lead them to believe they can't be critical of their own past.
You Dems and Neo-Cons are gonna drive all the Bill of Rights into the dirt. The Enlightenment and the Bill of Rights was about emancipatory laws, civil or natural (YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO.... rather than the Biblical, THOU SHALL NOT...).
These dopes is where it started in the US, so far as I know. Name a society that lived bery long without the thou shalt nots and you win a chance to waste your genes and memes.
As a proud Neocon, I have to wonder if MFT is confusing his Pat Buchanan's with his Neocons.
Hava Nagilah, Rebbe
"Name a society that lived bery long without the thou shalt nots and you win a chance to waste your genes and memes."
Yeah, and Babylon is still goin' strong... and the Christians never contributed to the demise of Rome (there were, of course, many contributing factors, this being one of 'em). Societies don't spin apart because the State isn't sanctifying marriage. That's already done in the private sphere with religion and voodoo. So far as the reporter of this story knows (and so far as I know), this law has never been enforced in North Dakota. Not in 1889, not now, and no where in between.
Road to Serfdom, fellahs. Here's to your U.S.S.A. We've been on the fast-track for some time. Keep the shackles comin'. I won't go quietly.
Finally, AA, a neocon talking sense. Although I object to the charge that I'm confusing some of my neocons. Neocons do have disparate views. I'm only going after those — the Ted Haggards and, what's this, JJ's of the world? — who I disagree with.
It's just good to find a topic some of us can disagree on. Christ it was starting to get boring around here.
Hey, hey, hey! I'm not a neocon, just a plain vanilla con (which in French is half your equation): neocon presupposes having been a trotskyite or something in one's flaming youth. I myself have been to the right of Atilla the Hun ever since I was in diapers -- proudly so, I may say.
I had a feeling, AI, that even General Patton was a little too centrist for a guy like yourself.
Yeah, and Babylon is still goin' strong... and the Christians never contributed to the demise of Rome (there were, of course, many contributing factors, this being one of 'em). Societies don't spin apart because the State isn't sanctifying marriage. That's already done in the private sphere with religion and voodoo.
MFT: Babylon and Rome are doing just fine. The Flood myth came from the Gilgamesh and it lives on just as a lot of legal tradition rests on the history of Rome. Christianity as we know it is a syncretism with the Roman religion. If it weren't, it likely would have been forgotten as the slaves' religion (Nietzsche) or a worse sect of Judaeism (Tacitus) millennia ago.
More to your objection, those societies survived and were fruitful as long as they did in part because of their traditions. That their traditions live on beyond them is a testament to the their strength. Also, the fact that they fell when their early, confining traditions came into question is no coincidence.
The nasty question to smash yours is of course,"Where are their (Babylon's and Rome's) competitors?"
Christ wasn't one. Remember that "Render unto Caesar..." thing.
The Right Rev. JJ: Of course Rousseau was an idiot. You don't need to read Nietzsche to figure that out. As far as slave morality goes, Fred was thundering against Christian Romanticism (his break with Wagner), and even anti-Semitism, but that's another rant.
Traditions exist within cultures or societies, and my point was that the State doesn't need to be involved in every aspect of our private lives (see Milton Friedman and the U of Chicago school of economics). If you want it involved in every aspect of yours, that's fine. But again, I don't need the State to validate whether living together with another woman is gonna get some provincial and Righteous judge to throw my ass in jail. The further you get out into the boonies, the weirder it gets.
Also, it's okay to critique the past from our presentday standpoint, JJ. If you want competitors for States that have endured, I'd only tell you to plug the word "Humanity" into your google engine. Totalitarians come and go (just like States), but the human desire to be free (there's that darned F word again) seems rather persistent.
1880 doesn't equal 2007, but by that logic, we could also ask if 2007 = 2001, or if 2007 = 1453, or whatever.
Nietzsche was wrong to assert that Christianity was a slave religion. It's a silly statement as a person of religion might just as easily accuse me of being a slave to the scribblings of the philosophes. Christians can be Christians if they want. It's a beautiful religion about forgiveness, and I think it's great if they find what they are looking for in it.
Legal Tradition might rest on Rome, but I'd like to see someone try to validate a Roman Contract in today's court.
Also-also: JJ, this cohabitation law has never restricted two women from living together, nor two men from living together. You should become a member of NAMBLA.
Governor Hoeven (R) is going to sign it out of existence if it makes it to his desk anyhow. Get ready for Western Civilization to spin out of control.
Here's the link to Sodom and Gomorrah.
The cohabitation law never involved two women's living together because no one would have imagined that it would come to this these days, with dykes adopting children they can never raise properly.
We don't have laws on the books prohibiting a man from marrying his horse because we thought Jesus had got us past Nero.
Good luck, mon ami.
As to the separation of church and state, it's a little early to decide whether that will work out. It has been a nice experiment since about 1776, but it seems to be too weak to deal with theocratic autocracy right about now that Pelosi and Reid are about to sell our Godless lives down the river to a bunch of sodomite madrassah teachers.
I hope it works out like you say, but it seems to me that it requires a hell of a lot of faith to say anything categorical.
Also, Humanity is not a state and Friedman was not a philosopher. If you want a pusher of your ideas with a little more depth, try Popper.
Already have Popper, JJ. What's your criteria for "philosopher"? This heathen needs a definition from The Right Rev. JJudge JJ, Moral-Political Historian, and Keeper of All Things Just.
JJ, if Friedman wasn't a philosopher, then what would you call Adam Smith?
Point and Counterpoint comes to life! Excellent MFT and JJ!
JJ, I can't imagine you'd suggest this, but I need to clear it up, so let me ask if you are calling for the Church and State to unify (they are tied in some areas already), especially after this statement:
"As to the separation of church and state, it's a little early to decide whether that will work out. It has been a nice experiment since about 1776, but it seems to be too weak to deal with theocratic autocracy right about now that Pelosi and Reid are about to sell our Godless lives down the river to a bunch of sodomite madrassah teachers."
Also: I understand what you're saying about Pelosi (she's an idiot, but no different from most politicos), but if an individual leads a "Godless" life, do you automatically assume they are misanthropes and nihilists?
Post a Comment