Coworker...Her husband and kids are out of town.

Actually, it does. If I can be thrown in a cage for it, it's illegal. The UCMJ is its own legal system. That's why you can be charged twice for a single violation.

You still can't conflate UCMJ with regular criminal statutes. It isn't the same.

Not in that state's legal system.

Even in that state's legal system.

That's the purpose for the marriage license.

Quite the opposite, a marriage license is necessary if you want modify the standard state rules because simply saying it in your vows is meaningless in law.

However, the vows are considered binding in whatever institution they are performed in, such as the church.

Only sometimes. Plenty of churches condone divorce now. And they aren't truly binding because the institution has no power to enforce.

I'm sensing that you don't have a firm grasp on what legal systems actually are.

Lol.

Regardless, the vows are still a verbal contract between two parties. Whether or not this is enforceable by the state is irrelevant.

No they are not a verbal contract. And it is states that get to decide what is and what isn't a contract, so whether it is enforceable in the state is actually the only relevant question.

What's the difference between a country and a plantation? I really don't see any meaningful difference. You work to generate revenue for the state. Every action you take is controlled by the state.

Well a country has certain limited rules and powers over its citizens, in our case, as spelled out in the Constitution, but people still have significant agency to act as they see fit. A plantation has absolute control over its slaves--they have no agency. The difference, as I have already said, is that not having absolute free-will is not the same as having no free will at all.

Still, you can't actually describe where the state's authority derives from, can you?

Sure. In our case from the Constitution. And, since we are a democratic republic, to some extent from the people themselves.

USMC. I was legal property. It's actually kind of a joke in the service... If you attack a service member, you can actually be charged with destruction of government property. Crazy, huh? You can't even get a tattoo without permission

You were not legal property. The 14th amendment prohibits that. There are lots of jokes and rumors about that, but it isn't literally true.

Again. This is about not having free will at all vs. having limited free will. Being in the military slides the scale in that direction, but you still aren't owned by anyone else. You still have agency and free will--even if it is somewhat more limited than it was for civilians.

Do you even understand why murder is wrong? Because you damage the other person's body... It's a damage of property. ALL authority stems from ownership. I keep saying this and yet you haven't been able to offer a counter-argument as to where authority comes from.

No. That isn't why murder was wrong. If murder was wrong simply because it was damage of property, there would be nobody to care--since the person whose property you damaged no longer exists.

not having absolute free-will is not the same as having no free will at all.

Of course not. That's why I break laws on a daily basis, lol.

Well that difference is why you aren't and never have been a slave. Slaves have no free will. You can't literally do whatever you want, but you have plenty of free will--even within the law. You are not and never have been a slave. That is absurd. Are we in agreement now?

/r/Cuckold Thread Parent Link - imgur.com