I ought to emphasise aspects of why the following comment is incorrect as an
argument against same gender civil unions:
"Society's laws and what they permit are not reflective of nature's natural
processes and more often than not thwart nature." ["Theopatra"
<Let_em_eat_Iraqi_democracy@hotmail.com>, X-Trace: posting.google.com
1135617384 503 127.0.0.1 (26 Dec 2005 17:16:24 GMT) (to expire)]
From Kant's description of the 'Doctrine of Right' within his 'Metaphysics
of Morals' we can deduce the following:
a) Consenting sexual activity between individuals of the same gender is
already legislatively defined: "Lawful sexual activity"
b) Sexual union in accordance with law is marriage (matrimonium), that
is, the union of two persons.
c) It is not requisite for human beings who marry to make this their end
in order for their union to be compatible with rights.
d) A state (civitus) is a union of a multitude of human beings under laws
of right.
e) This idea serves as a norm (norma) for every actual union into a
commonwealth (hence serves as a norm for its internal constitution).
Kant suggests that every state contains three authorities within it, that
is, the general united will consists of three persons (trias politica):
1. the sovereign authority (sovereignty) in the person of the legislator;
2. the executive authority (eg: Head of State) in the person of the ruler
(in conformity to the law); and
3. the judicial authority (to award to each what is his in accordance with
the law) in the person of the judge (potestas legislatoria, rectoria et
inudiciaria).
I make the observation that it is the 'homo noumenon' (as the pure reason
which is in me ) which is the actual idea that serves as a norm (norma) for
every actual union into a commonwealth (hence serves as a norm for its
internal constitution). Which as the individual human will contains its own
principles and laws, according to which Kant fails to recognize as the
autonomous right which is already possessed by human beings--thus the three
authorities (trias politica) might be more universally defined:
a) sovereignty {ie. Realm of its Nature as Heaven},
b) a head of state and {ie. System's Cosmology as Earth}
c) autonomy {ie. Self identity}.
As indicated, this equates to the structure of the Mysteries as nature's
natural processes {ie. the yearly cycle of the seasons} that are conveyed by
I-Ching by the first century BCE consisted of a set of 64 six-line hexagrams
comprising either a solid (yang ch'i) or a single broken (yin) line, were
substituted by a tetragram as four-line glyph, whose component parts were
read from top to bottom, in the opposite order to the I-Ching. The four
lines each therefore represented 3 possibilities {ie. solid, line broken,
double broken} meaning there were: 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = #81 possible tetragrams
within the Mystery, as opposed to the 64 glyphs of the I-Ching.
These tetragrams were associated to a hierarchical nest of divisions that is
at once a geographic, sociopolitical and anthropocentric realm implemented
during the Han period (206 BCE - 220 CE):
3 Regions {ie. Realm of its Nature as Heaven: + 0, 27, 54}
9 Provinces {ie. System's Cosmology as Earth: + 0, 9, 18}
27 Departments {ie. Self identity: + 0, 3, 6}
81 Families {ie. Its culturing as that which organises the myriad of
individual phenomena (Wan Wu): + 1, 2, 3} = Tetragrammation hierarchy value.
For example, the numerical value of #30 for the Tetragramation 'Bold
Resolution' is obtained by summing each row of the glyph as follows:
= = + 27
----- + 0
----- + 0
+++ + 3 = #30
Each of the tetragram corresponds to a 4.5 day period of the annual cycle as
equal apportion of a nine day period. Thus whilst Fan Wang (c 265 CE)
subsequently assigned 5 days to odd numbered tetragrams and 4 days to
even-numbered tetragrams, in conception, the system described by Yang Hsiung
is identical to Philolaus' Pythagorean belief (c. 500 BCE) as observation
made by the philosopher Censorinus (c. 285 CE) in 'De die Natali' where he
conveys the "natural year has 364 and a half days."
It is possible to view these as Immauel Kant (1724-1804 CE) suggests, as
though they are three propositions in a practical syllogism: the major
premise (YANG -- the great virtue of Heaven: male has mastery over the great
beginning of things [#32, #28, #14, #44 - Moderate Values/ Setting Up
Precepts, #15 - Mastering Guiding Discourse/ The Revealers of Virtue, #30,
#44, #43, #36]
Memorial Capstone of Royal Arch Freemasons Australia dated 30 May 1999
Hotel Sofitel 25 Collins Street, Melbourne
- <http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/centrum.html>
), which contains the law of that will; the minor premise (YIN -- Earth as
female brings things to completion [#2, #47, #10, #50 - Fantasies of
Avoiding Death/ The Estimation of Life, #9 - The Inconstancy of Achievement/
Practising Placidity, #47, #7, #14, #77]), which contains the command to
behave in accordance with the law, that is, the principle of subsumption
under the law; and the conclusion (ZHUN --
vMeme/Moment Kabbalistic Homoiotic Noumenon Entry: (33CE - INR)
#3 - Prescriptions for Politics/ Keeping the People Quiet,
#20 - Left without Language/ Different From the Vulgar,
#52 - So What?/ Returning to the Origin,
#73 - Employing Deeming/ Daring to Act,
#79 - Recognizing Agreements/ Keep Your Obligations,
#1 - To Guide with Names/ Reason's Realisation,
#16 - Being a Guide/ Returning to the Root,
#35 - Great Guiding Signs?/ Virtue of Benevolence,
#7 - Intentional Reversal/ Dimming Radiance
), which contains the verdict (sentence), what is laid down as right in the
case at hand." [Kant 1724-1804, The Doctrine of Right, The Metaphysics of
Morals, para 45]
The Government's present view of marriage as a special institution within
our society perhaps ignores that consenting sexual activity between
individuals of the same gender is already legislatively defined: "Lawful
sexual activity" by instead following the German Philosopher Immanuel Kant's
(1724-1804 CE) view conveyed by his treatise on 'The Doctrine of Right'
conveyed within 'The Metaphysics of Morals', namely:
"Natural sexual union takes place either in accordance with mere animal
nature (vaga libido, venus volgivaga, fornicatio) or in accordance with law.
Sexual union in accordance with law is marriage (matrimonium), that is, the
union of two persons of different sexes for lifelong possession of each
other's sexual attributes. The end of begetting and bringing up children
may be an end of nature, for which it implanted the inclinations of the
sexes for each other; but it is not requisite for human beings who marry to
make this their end in order for their union to be compatible with rights,
for otherwise marriage would be dissolved when procreation ceases.
Even if it is supposed that their end is the pleasure of using each other's
sexual attributes, the marriage contract is not up to their discretion but
is a contract that is necessary by the law of humanity, that is, if a man
and a woman want to enjoy each other's sexual attributes they must
necessarily marry, and this is necessary in accordance with pure reason's
laws of right.
For the natural use that ones sex makes of the other's sexual organs is
enjoyment, for which one gives itself up to the other. In this act a human
being makes himself into a thing, which conflicts with the right of humanity
in his own person. There is only one condition under which this is
possible: that while one person is acquired by the other as if it were a
thing, the one who is acquired acquires the other in turn; for in this way
each reclaims itself and restores its personality. But acquiring a member
of a human being is at the same time acquiring the whole person, since a
person is an absolute unity. Hence it is not only admissible for the sexes
to surrender and to accept each other for enjoyment under the condition of
marriage, but it is possible for them to do so only under this condition.
That this right against a person is also akin to a right to a thing rests on
the fact that if one of the partners in a marriage has left or given itself
into someone else's possession, the other partner is justified in retrieving
a thing." [Kant 1724-1804, The Doctrine of Right, The Metaphysics of Morals,
para 25]
However as conveyed by the attached folio, 'Religious Belief & The Letters
Patent to Australia's Constitution of 1901' which demonstrates the
underlying metaphysical theological and philosophical architecture to the
Letters Patent as homoiotic noumenon. The homo noumenon is the pure reason
which is in me as the individual human will contains its own principles and
laws, according to which Kant fails to recognize as the autonomous right
which is already possessed by human beings-Therefore it requires no judicial
or parliamentary authority to award to each what is his in accordance with
the law. The homoiotic noumenon is after all a transpersonal object, and
this may be viewed as having precedence to the judicial authority, which may
examine whether action (phenomenon) has been undertaken in accordance with
pure principles of right.
Kant also suggests, according to the principles of pure reason in me (homo
noumenon), that "A state (civitus) is a union of a multitude of human beings
under laws of right. Insofar as these are a priori necessary as laws, that
is, insofar as they follow themselves from concepts of external right as
such (are not statutory), its form is the form of the state as such, that
is, of the state in idea, as it ought to be in accordance with pure
principles of right. This idea serves as a norm (norma) for every actual
union into a commonwealth (hence serves as a norm for its internal
constitution).
Every state contains three authorities within it, that is, the general
united will consists of three persons (trias politica):
1. the sovereign authority (sovereignty) in the person of the legislator;
2. the executive authority (eg: Head of State) in the person of the ruler
(in conformity to the law); and
3. the judicial authority (to award to each what is his in accordance with
the law) in the person of the judge (potestas legislatoria, rectoria et
inudiciaria).
These are like the three propositions in a practical syllogism: the major
premise, which contains the law of that will; the minor premise, which
contains the command to behave in accordance with the law, that is, the
principle of subsumption under the law; and the conclusion, which contains
the verdict (sentence), what is laid down as right in the case at hand."
[Kant 1724-1804, The Doctrine of Right, The Metaphysics of Morals, para 45]
The Federal Liberal Party has by its actions with regards to this matter,
reduced our democracy to simply being characterized by the largest
population group exercising its voting power to simply vest a supreme power
within representatives of an institutional agent. One that ignores the
principle that such society is characterized by an equality of rights and
privileges as the franchised opportunity in which an individual may
participate as recognition that such supreme power is established upon
sovereignty, a head of state and autonomy.
Clearly if both the Catholic Cardinal Moran and the Anglican Archbishop,
Saumarez Smith, were in favor of Section 116 of the Constitution, which
prevented Sabbatarian {ie. Saturday} legislation whilst preserving the
religious values of Seventh-day Sabbath keepers as Judaeo-Christians, the
Commonwealth can similarly do so to prevent any opportunity for marriage
discrimination by those who confuse a pseudo-christianised form of Roman
Imperialism's hymeneal mysticism and debauchery as a religious/political
state in denial of the 'Judaeo-Christian tradition' it ought to protect us
from any custom, ordinance or religious practice:
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion:
Nature contains Nature {Nature amended in its Nature},
or for imposing any religious observance: Nature rejoices in its Nature {Act
of Nature},
or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion: Nature surmounts
Nature {Form of Nature},
and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or
public trust under the Commonwealth: Nature amended in its Nature
{Engendering Nature}" [Section 116 -- The Australian Constitution of 1901,
Chapter V - States, as in force on 1 July 1999; Ian Breward © 2001, A
History of the Churches in Australia, Oxford University Press, ISBN
0-19-826356-2, p 220]
.
|
