The Future of Love. was Re: [extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change, biology, last post, post, etc.

[Bret Kulakovich]

Statement:

All sentient entities, with the desire and commitment to do so,  
should be able to enjoy any and all rights, benefits, and protection  
by law, guaranteed to any other group. And that these intelligences,  
in the engagement of forming a family, shall do so without hinderance  
or bound of law, no matter what the nature of their manifestation,  
but by their declaration, understanding and choice.

Like it? Hate it? Do better.

What about more than two people? Do you think that marriage and  
families are bounded by rules made by key demographics? They've only  
existed as long as the major religions? What about AI? What about  
your uploaded self? Your selves?

How can you be a member of this list and contemplate a 'gay gene'?  
Many, many years from now people will look over this archive. Some of  
you will be embarrassed. Some very. I can not believe that this list  
- this list - is hamstrung on these notions. I am stunned. What list  
am I on again?

Any policy of exclusivity is written to the advantage of a given  
group. We, and the effort before us, will live and die by how we  
include. If our species is to embrace Transhumanist notions, we have  
to do better than this.


]3


ps - I began with the message below.


On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:24 AM, Evan Hamlin wrote:
> . One simple reason is that a society of purely homosexuals cannot  
> exist without the natural reproduction of heterosexuals

yet. 50 years, tops. Then what will you do, Evan?


On Jul 21, 2005, at 12:14 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Off the top of my head, various other possibilities suggest  
> themselves.

I am curious, Damien:  Do you spend as much time coming up with  
'reasons' for heterosexuality?


On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:19 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> The goals of society.  I am sorry but we appear to be of different  
> political species.  The legitimate function of government and law  
> is to protect the rights of the people not to shape the people  
> according to some "society".    You appear to be a socialist of  
> some variety.

Although I greatly enjoy the meter of this remark, I have to  
interject: Taxation is more social policy and agenda than anything  
else. Just take a look at the tax law. Truly. And it is annoying.


On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Al Brooks wrote:
> Though I support all rights & full legal marriage for gays, it is  
> good to see reasonable dissenting views.

Name one 'reasonable' dissenting view.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050722/557794b9/attachment.html>