Stargoat versus Morosoph

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: 2005.11.21 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:2)
by Stargoat (658863) <stargoat@gmail.com> on 2005.04.12 3:08 (#12202988) (Last Journal: 2005.11.24 23:24)
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.
--The hallmark work of man has been for the past eight thousand years creating a more accurate model of reality.[ 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: 2005.11.21 20:22)
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.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) <stargoat@gmail.com> on 2005.04.12 23:33 (#12211576) (Last Journal: 2005.11.24 23:24)
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.
--The hallmark work of man has been for the past eight thousand years creating a more accurate model of reality.[ 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: 2005.11.21 20:22)
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?
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]
Re: People..return to nature...(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) <stargoat@gmail.com> on 2005.04.13 0:47 (#12212434) (Last Journal: 2005.11.24 23:24)
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.
--The hallmark work of man has been for the past eight thousand years creating a more accurate model of reality.[ 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: 2005.11.21 20:22)
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.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org][ Parent ]