While the emphasis is put on information/memes, biological sex becomes somehow obsolete. Technogenic progress cancels mankind survival problem (which, in fact, never depended on homosexualism). In fact, dividing people into 2 sexes and according genders is a memetic invention. Even biologically there are more than 2 sexes (5 in total), while genders are unlimited. Gender is not something that could be separated from personality with all its meme complexes. Gender, in fact, is a configuration of these memes. In other words, each person has a different gender.
Practical reason is to give them freedom and treat them equally - as carriers of memes, so that they can finally shut up with useless shouting of something like "we are different!". Of course you are different, so what?
Theoretical reason is that they undergo a different experience so that quality memes can be produced to make our own perspective wider.
It is not moral duty to grant these rights, it is a matter of vision.
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #2 on: 2006-05-13 12:03:03 »
All "marriages" are effectively religious or social institutions and should not involve the government or vice versa. Neither the consent nor the approval of others should be needed to establish whatever relationships consenting people wish to establish.
Civil and contract law is sufficient to permit and protect individuals while they establish their own norms.
So the whole issue should be moot. The only reason it is not, is because some Mother Grundies (of all possible sexes) haven't got the smarts to figure out that just because their mothers told them that something was good or bad is no reason for them to accept it as an absolute - and even less reason for them to project it onto others.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #3 on: 2006-11-13 11:28:52 »
I agree with the post before mine, however I think that in American society a gay couple is still in need of one protection they lack. If one's spouse dies the other has no say in the funeral, estate, etc... an heterosexual couple has that power, that privilege. In some states there are tax breaks for married couples. Issues of such a nature need to be dealt with.
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #6 on: 2007-01-25 15:48:48 »
This is an argument that I've actually just had recently on a different forum. I won't just link you or copy/paste, however.
My beliefs on Gay Marriage stem from a few things that first need to be agreed on as evident.
1) Marriage is a Religious Fabrication, and is different from a Civil Union of the State (United States of America, for sake of argument) The terminology is interchangeable, however. 2) A Marriage is between Two Consenting Adults. (This is what forbids Polygamy, Forced Marriages, as well as Children Getting Married) 3) In the United States, we all are created equal and are all entitled to the pursuit of Happiness, assuming that it doesn't infringe on any else's pursuit of happiness. 4) Separation of Church and State, where "Church" is the Homo/Xenophobic sect known as Christianity.
If all of these are agreed upon, I see no reason for disallowing the legal binding of two individuals regardless of all genders.
As far as the Law is (should be) concerned is whether or not you are harming anyone. You are not.
Sanctity of Marriage? Two Hour Celebrity Weddings are legal, where is the sanctity there?
...If all of these are agreed upon, I see no reason for disallowing the legal binding of two individuals regardless of all genders...
[Blunderov] Welcome ComradeSmack. I agree with your views on the subject of gay marriage completely. If gay people insist on being as miserable as the rest of humanity who are we to stand in their way?
(I'm joking really. I think marriage can have much to recommend it. Though, as in much else about life, it helps to be lucky.)
All "marriages" are effectively religious or social institutions and should not involve the government or vice versa. Neither the consent nor the approval of others should be needed to establish whatever relationships consenting people wish to establish.
Civil and contract law is sufficient to permit and protect individuals while they establish their own norms.
So the whole issue should be moot. The only reason it is not, is because some Mother Grundies (of all possible sexes) haven't got the smarts to figure out that just because their mothers told them that something was good or bad is no reason for them to accept it as an absolute - and even less reason for them to project it onto others.
Hermit
OK. I give up.
WTF is a Mother Grundy?
Not that I need to know that to grok your point, which is right on as usual, but I'm just the curious type.
[Blunderov] Intriguing question the answer to which was not readily available on the net. Britannica had the answer though:
<snip> Grundy, Mrs.
imaginary English character who typifies the censorship enacted in everyday life by conventional opinion. She first appears (but never onstage) in Thomas Morton's play Speed the Plough (produced 1798), in which one character, Dame Ashfield, continually worries about what her neighbour Mrs. Grundy will say of each development. Since then the term Mrs. Grundy has passed into everyday speech as a criterion of rigid respectability.
"Grundy, Mrs.."Encyclopędia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopędia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD"</snip>
[Bl.] Not to be confused with another formidable obstacle:
Actually she isn't a person, she is a mountain that stands across the valley from Padre Grande; her real name is Madre Grande. There is a road - Mother Grundy Truck Trail - that roughly (very roughly, in places) skirts her on two sides, and hence the name of the area.
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #12 on: 2007-01-26 06:20:47 »
I'm sure a lot of people in this community would have already read this one... but all the same
"A Gullop poll taken in 1999 asked Americans whether they would vote for an otherwise well-qualified person who was a woman (95% would), Roman Catholic (94%), Jew (92%), black (92%), Mormon (79%), homosexual (79%) or atheist (49%)." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.
Re:new vote: same sex marriage
« Reply #14 on: 2007-09-06 23:48:13 »
I, myself, do not mind what gay people do in their spare time so long as it does not involve me. However if a couple decides to have kids, whether through adoption or by any other means, I don't think that would be a good idea. Parents and guardians have a tendency to try and instill some of their own beliefs and scrupels to the ones that they are raising.
If your friend wants to adopt a kid but wants the kid to grow up to be his own person then that is fine. However, being raised in a gay family might make the child gay when he gets older. Maybe he would've turned out that way anyways even if he was raised in a straight household. But then again, maybe not.
For example: My ex-girlfriend wasn't born bisexual. She had an experience with a friend and therefore started to like girls as well. So I find it hard to believe that anyone is born gay.
Life is a subjective experience. Since I am not homosexual, then the decision doesn't lie with me. However, the word "marriage" does involve me in the slightest. But once again, a mere battle of semantics. The definition of marriage as originally described as a union of a man and woman stands. Changing the definition to broaden it is, albeit untraditional in the highest sense. But as we are the makers of manners, it matters very little.
Those who value tradition, can pet themselves on the head and reassure themselves that they have a 'true' marriage as described originally. In the end, it righteously makes very little difference. All over the tradition. The results are having to take the gay community seriously. Which many people will never be prepared to do.
If it happens, then I am likely to ignore it as I do most affairs that are not my concern. If it doesn't happen, then it soon will.
Author
Logged
