Gayes and thier Impossibility of Marriage
2005.04.12 1:27

Marriage is only possible between two opposite genders. Here marriage means a legal affair. Civil marriage, common-law marriage, religeous marriage might be OK as long as their own accordance, but I oppose to give them a legal status as well as 'legal' marriage.
Marriage means no more than economic matters. Everything is depend so there might be cases that might be better for us to admit their legal status as well as the cases held in opposite genders if they are virtually husband and wife regardless their real genders, but once we started admitting same sex marriage we will have more complicated cases as marriage between two men who's very wealthy in order to have an extreme wealth. Nobody cannot tell they are actually in liasons but themselves, so these are an extended cases of marriage of convenience.
People..return to nature...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Gayes and thier Impossibility of Marriage Preferences Top 50 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 50 comments 0: 50 comments 1: 50 comments 2: 37 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 2:19 (#12202238) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
But what is natural? Isn't that what is precisely at issue? It's easy to confuse 'normal', and 'natural', but gayness is perfectly natural, or else it wouldn't occur. Gays have a variety of relationships, just as hetrosexuals do. If it's natural to marry someone that you love, shouldn't that still apply, even when that love hasn't historically been condoned or recognised? What if marriages between different classes or castes had historically not occurred?
I did write a long article about gay marriage [slashdot.org] a while back, leading to long arguments with On Lawn. The summary of it is that he thought that history what what was important, whereas I believe it to be consistency as regards recognition of a union of spirits, so as to form a larger whole with four arms, four legs, two heads, and two bodies. To have a child requires sexual difference, but the rest do not; besides, many couples choose not to have children; some are infertile.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.04.12 3:08 (#12202988) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 0:58)
I disagree with Morosoph, but mostly because I just don't care. I do not care what other folks call themselves, do to themselves, or do to others who consent to it, as long as I don't pay for it. So, we come to the same point, but my point is, I don't care and neither should you.
I am responsible for my own happiness. You are responsible for your own happiness. Two gays folks down the street no more infringe on that than a lunatic calling himself Queen Mary of Scots. It's called Freedom of Speech. Seeing as how marriage is simply a social construct, it falls well within the bounds of the first amendment, and accompanying enlightenment ideals.
So let gay folks marry. If they think it will make them happy, great. Good on them. But, if they want me to pay for their wedding, they can go to hell. That goes for the rest of you too.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 8:09 (#12206494) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
I seem to have lost my reply: I think that I hit "preview", saw that it was good, and deleted the tab.
We agree that gays should be allowed to marry. Our reasoning may not be the same, and I, personally do care, but I care about freedom: it's not a case of bleeding harder than thou. As for payment, I don't think that On Lawn's analysis on us paying for their marriage works for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that Gays, not having kids, are likely to be earning more, so if anything, they're likely to be paying more in tax, on average, than the rest of us. Also, not needing to support their kids is a serious plus.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.04.12 23:33 (#12211576) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 0:58)
I guess I would say that we are paying for gay marriage, but they pay for heterosexual marriage. Why should we deny them? Basically, we're making them pay for government benefits they are not entitled to. This is unacceptable and unconstitutional.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 0:06 (#12211906) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Your real problem seems to be all cross-subsidy of marriage; what of the subsidy by the unmarried? Dividing marriages into two classes when both contribute and receive seems a little arbitary; since your issue is about cross-subsidy, surly it's more consistent to say that you're against that.
The alternative is to arbitarily support restrictions upon what people do based upon what the government [threatens to] subsidise. IMO, it's bad enough being taxed without then deriving minute regulations on the basis that in making use of their subsidies, we're exploiting the taxpayer. Does minimum health cover meant that you have the right to stop others from smoking, or climbing mountains?--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.04.13 0:47 (#12212434) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 0:58)
Smoking, yes. Or rather to deny the smoker the right of minimium health coverage. If you smoke, I don't want to pay for your health care, because you are actively and knowingly endangering yourself with a recreational drug. In this case, the same goes for other drugs. Mountain climbing no. We cannot say one sport is more endangering than another, because that would be arbitrarily imposing standards. I do not feel very strongly about this though, and would recognize a strong argument against mine.
The point I'm making of gay marriage is not the subsidy of it, but rather the denying of the ability to have the benefit of it. We cannot give one group of people who make non-harmful choices the right to benefit from a social institution, and not another.[ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 1:07 (#12212761) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
We cannot give one group of people who make non-harmful choices the right to benefit from a social institution, and not another.I think that we agree, here.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.12 4:54 (#12204462) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
I am opposed to give them - gay couples a full legal status as married couples have been exercising especially in distribution of assets or property.
There are many civil unions including gay, lesbian couples as well as the one a married man sometimes holds union with another concubine, etc regardless of their legal status. I mean the right of legally married couples has to be prior to those of de-facto couples.
My point is legal monogamy is the best way for us to maintain order of our society, which does not necessarily mean we cannot have civil/common-law/religeous couples. It's just a natural phenomenon in our society to have forms of union other than legal monogamy, but I mean it's better for us to bestow full legal protection only on the form of union which is only one marriage between two opposite genders.
So the phrase 'return to nature' connotes many but here 'monogamy between two opposite genders is a wisdom humans generated for many years, so return to the most orthodox form of marriage' I'm sorry.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 20:01 (#12210356) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Two wealthy individuals doesn't make "extreme wealth". The population has a vast disparity of wealth (which I, incidentally, don't have much problem with), so moving, on average, a little way up the economic scale, doesn't really create unusual situations. A tenfold increase would raise them one social class, but twofold increase is simply a little more pleasant.
There is one factor that makes things different: children. Arguably, wealth is shared because that is fairest to children, any other reason is in fact a judgement that gays are simply not serious, whereas straight couples are, which I believe to be simply prejudice. I would argue (although On Lawn would disagree with me) that the other reasons are themselves enough. Notably: two people living together perpetually work better together (more efficiently) if they share resources. This is the contractual side of marriage, and there is no reason why it applies any less to gays.
The history argument is IMO spurious; we has been prejudiced since the year dot because gayness to many induces a feeling of revulsion. This factor, however is unrelated to the efficacy of marriage, and has no baring upon naturalness, which is a question of whether the marriage locally cements something healthy, rather than how the act of marriage is judged by others.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.13 0:29 (#12212163) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Usually first born sons inherit all their parent's wealth. If two first born sons kept on marrying, huge accumulation of wealth would come out. I can say things differently. Both first born sons might start fighting over sovereignty of his own family name at best, family fortune at worst, whichever occurred, either huge disparity or nullification appears. But things are not so, a woman enters her husband's family with nothing. Therefore no fight occurs.
Above I mentioned is a rough draught, then more concrete one... Sometimes we have a news of various types of family. For example, gay couple with a kid adopted. Kids might be a kid of one of gay couple's, they are suffered from lack of social benefits like social security, medical insurances, annuities, tax exemption, etc. It is my opinion that law cannot change only for the benifit of their gender preference. Once same sex marrige were admitted, our society would face severer problems than now they face. Problems such as marriage without substantial love affairs but only for inheritance purposes, etc.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 1:01 (#12212667) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Usually first born sons inherit all their parent's wealth. If two first born sons kept on marrying, huge accumulation of wealth would come out.Hmmm. Biology question: "Sterility is hereditory, discuss".
First, they can't keep on having first born sons. They're gay, remember.
Second, in the modern world, vastly more wealth is earnt than inherited.
Third, for the vast majority in the past, there wasn't a good deal of wealth to inherit, so on that basis, marriage between the poor should never have been allowed.
Fourth, even if they could, somehow, have children, the odds are strongly against their children being gay. Wealth will disperse before too long.
Lastly, wealth doesn't last forever: somewhere along the line, it'll get passed to a squanderer.
Gays might, statistically, end up slightly richer, but there won't be a lot in it, and compared to the disparities you find anyway, it's ignorable.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.13 1:20 (#12212951) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
First, they can't keep on having first born sons. They're gay, remember.
Firstly I am not particulary against about marrying gay couples. My point is, once we admitted marrying same gender couples, a guy who wants to make huge wealth would try to find a guy who has also huge wealth then marry. They are not gays, just two men who want to make their wealth twice as large as they each used to have. Their marriage is only for convenience with neither love nor sex only for their inheritance purposes. Thus order of society will start collapsing. So I am opposed to same gender marriage.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 1:43 (#12213293) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
My point is, once we admitted marrying same gender couples, a guy who wants to make huge wealth would try to find a guy who has also huge wealth then marry. They are not gays, just two men who want to make their wealth twice as large as they each used to have.I doubt that this would happen enough to matter. Also, they're no better off sharing than acting singularly: they might get half of a bigger house, but you could do the same by leasing half a house. How do they focus their wealth down the generations? Why would they want to? The biological imperitive would mitigate against them funding the other's child. If they were inclined to generousity, why would they, in statistically meaningful numbers, choose to do it this way, by supporting someone else's children, rather than by say funding cancer research?
I find your argument less than convincing, I'm afraid.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.13 6:44 (#12217143) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Reality is sigular. Exactly. Then how about realities? Realities are plural. So reality is singular but in reality, it's plural.
As I pointed out, there's huge chasm between reality and language. Usually we use language to think about reality. But it does not reflect reality well, so we always have to use power of imagination in order to understand reality well. Then we can communicate. So actually although we are using language we have to use power of imagination instead in order to understand reality well. In other words, we use spoon when we eat. But we don't eat spoon. We eat some food on the spoon. So what's important is what a spoon carry in front of our mouth, then more important thing is how we taste in our mouth and how we digest, and what not...Tool/spoon/ language always being a poor, we have to always try to have our imagination work in the case of communication/dialog/blog, etc. Of course if we don't know how to use spoon, it is a matter to consider prior to conversation.
I doubt that this would happen enough to matter.
You think so? Me too. It's not likely to happen, but in realities we will face in the future, such a stupidity might occur. When system changes in favour of exception - in this case, marital status in gay couples, the rest of the applied cases too tend to alter what they think it's economically beneficial. People are greed. Just imagine...--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.12 4:57 (#12204507) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 10:10)
If it's natural to marry someone that you love, shouldn't that still apply, even when that love hasn't historically been condoned or recognised? Actually, what hasn't been historically recognized is the idea of marrying for LOVE. That's only about 300 years old. Before, love was love and marriage was marriage and it was very rare for the two to go together. Marriage was, as Mercedo correctly puts it, an economic affair- it was very much about producing heirs to merge the fortunes of two families. No wonder so many cultures choose to get their children engaged at a very young age- forming advantageous mergers between family businesses. So no- there's nothing natural in the connection between love and marriage at all.Would it surprise you to learn that love and sex are two different things as well?--The two chances he had to legally be a dictator under the Constitution- and Bush blew both. [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.12 6:02 (#12205303) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Love is spiritual. Sex is physical. Marriage is economical.
.. Therefore I am.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 8:00 (#12206440) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Would it surprise you to learn that love and sex are two different things as well?We might not see eye to eye politically, but that is an insult.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.12 9:29 (#12207166) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 10:10)
We might not see eye to eye politically, but that is an insult. Calling you an American is an insult? I suppose it could be. But the point was- in American culture we often mix sex, love, and marriage in a way that would be considered inappropriate, even scandoulous in an earlier time. The point is that there's nothing natural at all in marriage being linked to love; love being linked to sex; or for that matter, marriage being linked to sex beyond the necessary production of heirs to carry on the family name. For tens of thousands of years, these were separate concepts. Tighter inheritance laws in the middle ages under the Catholic Church made the link between sex and marriage a bit stronger- but even that was still tied to the production of heirs. Even in American society throughout the 1800s, at least among the upper classes marriage was an economic, political merger and had NOTHING to do with love.I do have to wonder if the lack of sex, attraction, and love is a part of the reason for the "American Curiosity" of families dying off after 3 generations or so even today.--The two chances he had to legally be a dictator under the Constitution- and Bush blew both. [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 9:45 (#12207274) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Ah. I'm a Brit, BTW. And here too, some of the patterns that you mention apply, although less strongly (Europe is even 'softening' us, in a good way).
I forget that you too have AS; I may be lacking in an ability to read, but I believe that I have a subtlety about me that can in some ways compensate.
Love is complex indeed. I believe, personally, that there is more to love than chemistry: some kind of psychic 'resonance', maybe, and I have in the course of my former breakdown experienced enough "weird shit" to believe that this 'resonance' principle is vast indeed. I could make sense of the phrase "god is love" in this way, but having done so, the rest of dogma and doctorine makes no sense. Religion is a socialised massive oversimplification, to the point of harming those who really do want to know the truth.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 3:58 (#12215128) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 10:10)
Religion isn't about Scientific Truth or even Philosophical Truth at all to begin with- it's about Theological Truth, which HAS to be oversimplified to make any sense at all. You're trying to use logic to understand theologic- and it doesn't work because the rules simply aren't the same.Dogma and Doctrine, as a subset of theology, aren't about God or our relationship with God. It's about the interface between religion and Politics- a form of Political Truth, with a Theological Truth point of view. Thus it shouldn't make any "sense" from a scientific truth point of view at all- and only very tangenitally philosophic truth. What it's really about is- what are the individual behaviors that best support society as a whole? What is damaging to society, and what supports society? It's a TOTALLY different view than modern democratic Poltical Truth which is about freedom for the individual- it bears more resemblance to the totalitarian governments in some ways, but with more of an eye towards massive control of even the most uneducated portions of society, and for the good of all rather than the good of a small minority.Does that help, understanding that perhaps it's pointing at an entirely different thing than what you think of as "truth"?--The two chances he had to legally be a dictator under the Constitution- and Bush blew both. [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 4:17 (#12215350) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
Sorry. What I know comes from personal experience. There's one reality, and most people are wrong about it. I believe, as it happens, that what I experienced is explainable using current physics, but then it might require new physics. I might indeed be wrong, myself!
Your funny definitions of truth I cannot meaningfully distinguish from myth.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 4:46 (#12215680) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 10:10)
Physics itself is a myth. An new physics is a myth. There's no reason at all to think that our experiences are any more real than any other, let alone things that are second-and-third-order experiences like TV Sets, Radio Waves, Electronics, etc.What you're doing is confusing the symbol with the thing it symbolizes- like most people. If there is a single reality, it's completely unknowable because it is infinite and we are finite. The best we can do is create myths- symbols and systems that model reality, but are not in and of themselves reality. That's where my "funny definitions of truth" come in- what I'm really talking about is not a single reality, a single truth, but different ways of modeling reality in such a way that a human brain can understand it.As A.S. sufferers- you and I are particularly and singularly bad at some models. You and I are completely, utterly retarded when it comes to other people's emotions. We assume that they are the same as us, when they're really not- their brains work differently than ours do. That doesn't matter very much when it comes to scientific, or even theological truth. There are systems in place, the scientific method and it's older cousin the counciliar method, that specifically negate the emotional component- that's what they're supposed to do. But in Political Truth and Philosophical Truth- they have their methods too, but their methods are specifically designed, near as I can tell, to emphasize the emotions and SUPRESS the facts. You're looking for a factual based truth- confusing your model of truth with reality- when none can possibly exist, and you consider other models to be merely myth- not realizing that your own model, too, is merely myth, because that's all a myth is- a model that explains something about the universe.--The two chances he had to legally be a dictator under the Constitution- and Bush blew both. [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.13 5:33 (#12216280) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
What you're doing is confusing the symbol with the thing it symbolizes- like most people.I don't do this. Physics is an analogy: a powerful one, to be sure. I stated that I believed that my experiences were "explainable using current physics, but then it might require new physics. I might indeed be wrong, myself!"; this does not mean that I believe that the physics is the reality. I even paused to wonder whether I should write that reality might indeed lack mathematical representation, but I decided that it distracted from my point, so I didn't write that.
Emphasising the emotions is a strategy that is fit, rather than true; it seems that subject to an environment where many perpetually seek social advantage, it is fit for some to specialise in truth over immediate social advantage. This, I suspect, is part of the reason that AS is relatively common. I suspect that it is similar with manic depressives: in that case, raw creativity is the advantage. I am not going to call what is socially advantageous "truth" out of deferrence; after all, the average person considers someone with AS to be emotionally naïve, stunted, maybe even (falsely) cold. Being in the minority, it is easy to accept an inferior status by using others' norms, but I don't think that this is fair, any more than it is fair to rate olympic runners according to their scores at IQ tests.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.04.13 8:33 (#12218302) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 10:10)
Ah- you're still in that stage of acceptance of Autism. It works for a while- but in the end result, 956 people out of every 1000 don't have Autism. If you're ever going to truly understand THEIR reality- part of it is what is socially advantageous. To them, it's no less true than facts are to you; it's just based on a different set of axioms and logical rules.--The two chances he had to legally be a dictator under the Constitution- and Bush blew both.