
Journal mercedo's Journal: Gayes and thier Impossibility of Marriage 50
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...
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
I did write a long article about gay marriage [slashdot.org]
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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. Se
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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 b
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
The
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:1)
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 n
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
There is one factor that makes things different: children. Arguably, wealth is shared because that is fairest to children, any other reason i
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:1)
Above I mentioned is a rough draught, then more concr
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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 bee
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:1)
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
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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 genera
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:1)
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 we
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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 wo
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:1)
.. Therefore I am.
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:1)
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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 "weir
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
Your funny definitions of truth I cannot meaningfully distinguish from myth.
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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 reali
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
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 decide
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical errors more than I do, but she sees the flaws if I point them out (sometimes it can take a while to explain). Again, this isn't a different reality.
We have different expe
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
And yet- relativism may yet turn out to be more true than what you call "truth", simply because data points are filtered out in any given human system for finding truth.
She, however, is minutely aware of much that is going on around her, but this isn't a different reality; it's a difference of emphasis. She may make logical error
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
I'll grant you that knowing the truth is difficult, and that, yes, Aspergers does inhibit the acquisition of particual kinds of data, but if our senses and minds were filtering, they'd have to be filtering something, or else it's raw unfiltered difference.
Whatever the effect of mind, I can tell you from experience that Aspergans are m
Re: Objectivism is at best just another myth... (Score:2)
I thought that I ought to clarify that I am no follower of Ayn Rand [slashdot.org].
Re: People..return to nature... (Score:2)
Not only Asperger's. EVERYBODY does this to some extent. If anything, Neurotypicals have MORE filters than we do. Speculating about a single reality is worthless for exactly this reason- there's no way for human beings to ever know a single external r
Re: Objectivism is at best just another myth... (Score:2)
Reality (Score:2)
Re:Reality (Score:2)
This is an important issue, and I would go further; as randomness accumulates, the past is really lost, albeit far more slowly than human memory. The current universe can diverge into a plurality of possible futures, and also has a plurality of possible pasts (again, the range is less wide than that soley deducible from human consciousness).
So how do you know that a given human being, or group of human beings, shares th
Re::lity (Score:2)
I don't; reality might be far vaster than our perception of it. For example, reality might involve several intersecting time-streams, so that others joined our universe, having experienced a past embedded in a different, parallel universe; perhaps one that merged, or part-merged with this one (I am applying the many-world hypothesis into the past). A practical objection is that human-sized objects are
Re::lity (Score:1)
I think both of you are correct. AS is not a disease, or rather their position is near to God, for me your views are extremely shinning and just it's uneasy for us to see it directly. You are a chosen one, please keep on holding your views and I am sure you w
Re::lity (Score:2)
Actually, it's stranger than that: I've found that I was adapting to others, and in the process of doing so, I was losing my insight and truth-centeredness! Since truth-centredness is not of high social value, it takes an effort of will to work at restor
Re::lity (Score:2)
Ok- I can handle that- that fits my theory. You're just using a superset of what I call realities, to define the singular reality. What a single human experiences as reality may be just a part of a universe, or part of several universes, there's no way to know.
To root
Re::lity (Score:1)
Re::lity (Score:2)
Re::ctionary 'reality' (Score:2)
Difference (Score:1)
My Perception isn't Objective Either (Score:2)
My comparative difficulty in empathsising means that I am lacking data that you have. MH42's alternate theory is important, although to me it looks improbable. That is the way with theories: that which fits with the rest of our mental structure appears probable, and that which doesn't does not.
Re::lity (Score:2)
I believe (perhaps falsely) that there is political motivation behind your pluralistic view. I believe myself that physical relativism is antiprogressive [slashdot.org], and in facts results in less freedom, rather than more. The reason being that a lever i
Re:My Perception isn't Objective Either (Score:1)
Re::lity (Score:2)
No- you'd be correct in that. What that political motivation is, however is wrong in your assumption. By constraining freedom to a single reality- you limit your politics to a politics of adversarial competition- A singular Truth, a singular Profit, a singluar Dogma even, limits you to fighting for that. And by extention, limits you to a lack of understanding that ACTION ALWAYS HURTS SOMEBODY. That's the hole
Re::lity (Score:2)
But how can you when you don't know for sure what it is? By understanding reality to be relative, it becomes a (more) political decision whether someone is sane, and it's reasonable to shut someone up
mercedo's JE (Score:2)
Re:mercedo's JE (Score:1)
What matters is your postulation.
I think your latest response to me was as good as perfection, but with MH42, you are still struggling. My new JE was a comment about your comment on MH42's comment. Whichever your comments might be, your idea is basically similar, but sometimes you are OK, then sometimes I feel questionable. Till we get rid of
Danger of One Party Rule (Score:1)
But how can you when you don't know for sure what it is?
We don't necessarily have to be sure when we can say something, though we'd be sure, we are just unable to be sure.
By understanding reality to be relative, it becomes a (more) political decision whether someone is sane, and it's reasonable to shut som
Re:Danger of One Party Rule (Score:2)
But I don't know that. Existance != knowledge.
I agree, but the problem here is hubris: the conviction that one's own perception is unflawed. I hold that perception is extremely flawed, and that the way to surer knowledge
Re:Danger of One Party Rule (Score:1)
"Shared reality == sanity" is what kills that natural resistance.
Maybe so, but physical relativism isn't going to fix that. In fact, it would make things worse: those in power would use the idea as leverage as to why people should believe their version. That each of us should be open to other possibilities isn't what they're going to deduce from it, instead, they'll slander t