by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.12 2:19 (#12202238) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.11.21 20:22)
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.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.12 4:54 (#12204462) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
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: 2005.11.21 20:22)
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.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.13 0:29 (#12212163) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
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: 2005.11.21 20:22)
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.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.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.13 1:20 (#12212951) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
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: 2005.11.21 20:22)
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.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.13 6:44 (#12217143) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2005.11.28 17:58)
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 ]
