Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal mercedo's Journal: Gayes and thier Impossibility of Marriage 50

Journal by mercedo
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This discussion has been archived.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 More

Gayes and thier Impossibility of Marriage

Comments Filter:
  • 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]

    • 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. Se

      • 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

        • 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.
          • 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 b

            • 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

    • 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 n

      • 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 i

        • 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 concr

          • 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 bee

            • 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

              • 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 genera

                • 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 we

    • 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 wo
      • Love is spiritual. Sex is physical. Marriage is economical.

        .. Therefore I am.

      • 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.
        • 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
          • 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 "weir

            • 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
              • 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.

                • 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 reali

                  • 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 decide

                    • 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.
                    • My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism.

                      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

                    • My terse response is that my ex-, who is most definately not Autistic, and is in fact bipolar is continually impressed by the value that I put upon truth. This isn't relativism.

                      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

                    • 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.

                      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

                    • The word "Objectivism" has more than one meaning.

                      I thought that I ought to clarify that I am no follower of Ayn Rand [slashdot.org].

                    • 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.

                      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
                    • Good for you to do that- most certainly. Ayn Rand's form of objectivism is definately an extreme- such an extreme that her works are outside of reality for most of humanity. The libertarian party would do far better if they'd realize they were working in a different reality than the rest of us- and adjust their language appropriately.

                    • 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 reality. It will always be filtered, first by our senses, second by our experiences, and third merely by our observation. We can build frames of reference to deal with it- but each frame of reference, each reality, is just a model- and bears no actual resembela

                    • I think we're basically agreed- but I'd point out the importance of this little bit:

                      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

                    • So how do you know that a given human being, or group of human beings, shares the same past you do?

                      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

                    • I understand both of you have history of AS. He almost completely overcame his AS and will have been in a process of being a great thinker. You have been taking another way unlike he did. You are within an AS world and trying to justify your position.

                      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

                    • I understand both of you have history of AS. He almost completely overcame his AS and will have been in a process of being a great thinker. You have been taking another way unlike he did. You are within an AS world and trying to justify your position.

                      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

                    • But my point is that if they don't share pasts within the same universe, our initial assessment of what reality is was wrong. Expanded to the mutilverse, or other extension of the universe, our experiences are still embedded within that.

                      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
                    • When someone see 'Re::lity', the ones recognise it Reality or Re:Reality, it is good enough to understand the nature of language (verbal expression) and reality (and what indicates behind the verbal expression). It is not very important whether it is a correct verbal expression (Reality/Re:Reality) or incorrect verval expression( Re::lity ) as long as we can recognise it refers to something refers to reality or re:reality, here we use the power of imagination to supplement the incompleteness of verbal expr
                    • Re::lity. I'm playing games with slashdot. Notice how it remains intact when one hits 'reply' :o)
                    • The biggest problem with physical relativism is that it entrenches a deeper and inescapable conservativism: 'truth' is made subservient to the power structure. I wrote a journal Reality is Singular [slashdot.org], as you know (since you wrote a reply (o: ). If evidence counts for nothing, and it would certainly count for less, then truth becomes completely swallowed by politics. Personally, I'd be just as unhappy with the 'truth' being democratised as it being made subsevient to buisness interests, as it is at present
                    • It seems to me that I understand your thought clearly than ever. You stand in the objective truth which possibly exists outside our perception of knowledge, which I myself am unable to know. But in your reality, it counts for more than your or our subjective 'truth' - in your terminology, belief might be the word instead. I just noticed you live in an entirely different realm from the rest of us -including a man from AS, and 956 out of 1,000 -ordinary people who have got ordinary perception. Because normall
                    • Although I claim that there must be objective truth, I don't claim that I know it either. I too need to be open to others. I too need to listen to mavericks. I need to listen to you, and to Marxist Hacker 42.

                      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.

                    • The Multiverse is a hypothesis that I don't buy into myself, but it is one that I accept as a possiblity. [slashdot.org] If universes intersect, though, this must but restrictions upon the degree of deviance in physical law: for universes to intersect is a restraining condition.

                      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

                    • I think it's worthwhile to keep on discussing the issue with you. For many people it's something which is taken for granted that there's a little difference but not much difference between reality and perception. Basically they don't care unlike you do. Of course I have already noticed it, but for my part, I haven't encountered difficulties as you've found - unbearable uneasiness of chasms between what it is(reality)and how it represents(perception). See another JE.
                    • I believe (perhaps falsely) that there is political motivation behind your pluralistic view.

                      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

                    • 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.

                      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

                    • Ps. mercedo has published a JE [slashdot.org] concerning the nature of reality.
                    • Thank you very much for your reference. I needed some courage to write a JE about you. But I did so because I thought it benefits both of us, and I wrote another JE.

                      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

                    • My views are basically similar to MH42, apart from your postulation our view with you is similar, but because you perceives things a little bit differently, superficially it looks different. Anyway...

                      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

                    • It is a realy dangerous idea, we ought to evade that. So suppose you were physicaly absolutely correct,

                      But I don't know that. Existance != knowledge.

                      you have solemn right to declare some one is insane, and have shut them up, deprive of someone's right to say something because they are insane? This is a very dangerous idea.

                      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

                    • but a diversity of opinion on the basis that we cannot be sure what reality is makes society more immune to bad (but 'fit') ideas.

                      "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

Slashdot Top Deals

About the time we think we can make ends meet, somebody moves the ends. -- Herbert Hoover

Close