[extropy-chat] A Diversity Re: Just curious, it's not natural!

[Anna Taylor]

Al Brooks wrote:
>Homosexuals want the right of making serious medical
>decisions (as Terry Schiavo's husband had in her
>case); they want full inheritance rights;
>etc. They want, in short, complete marital parity
with
>straights.

Why shouldn't they get them?  I didn't object to the
legal rights of homosexuals as much as I wouldn't
object against a transgender that lives with a guy or
a girl for 10 years.  Nobody can argue that any
coupling generates better spending habits, shared
responsibilities as well as an easier lifestyle.  

>But 86 percent of Americans believe in a God, 
>and from everything I've seen the religious still
>dominate society.

So by saying, "great, i'm smarter, i know better, i
have an IQ of this, my opinion is better, it's more
logical", it won't change a damn thing.  Until you are
able to reach a majority, you can't accomplish
anything. Choosing to ignore or criticize a behavior
is not going to make it any wiser.  Finding relevant
associations within a pattern will generate the best
answer.  

What I am arguing is the relevant factor between the
word "marriage" and a male/female relationship.  Don't
you associate the word "marriage" with procreation?
I do and until a transgender can give birth, I, as a
heterosexual female, have every right to decide that I
don't want that word changed. This is from a
historical point of view.  
Can X+X create Y?
No.  X+Y=Y+X.
Everything else under is simply formality.

With future technology, my opinion might change. When
a trangender gives birth then I could see how the
equation would change.

>In the back of my mind I always-- every day-- think
of
>what Richard Brookhiser wrote, "...the intrusion of
>previous eras into their successors... our notions of
>warfare and masculinity were shaped by the era of
>hunting and gathering".

The definitions of masculinity and femininity change
all the time.  Not all masculinity was shaped by the
era of hunting and gathering.  Many sorts of different
male figures lived that bared no comparison to the
hunting and gathering age. 

Bill K:
* What is the real work to be done on this
planet?...It's to make ourselves more aware, to remind
ourselves that our essential nature is nonviolent, and
to increase the amount of compassion and cooperation
on the planet.
* Fear is a belief in your inadequacy to deal with
something.
* A limit can be either a frontier or a boundary.
* Because your existence in time and space is unique,
there are lives that only you can touch.
* Don't let what you are being get in the way of what
you might become.
* What a fabulous moment, to realize that no word or
thought can truly describe you.

Ofcourse, in a "Unique" sense.  I would call this
poetry.

Olga Bourlin wrote:
Al Brooks wrote:
>But 86 percent of Americans believe in a God, 
>and from everything I've seen the religious still
>dominate society.

>>Yes, sad ... ain't it?

Why sad?  Do you have a better solution?  Do you think
science will spontaneously explode and people will
suddenly just believe in cryonics?  No preaching, no
believing, no memes, no memories..poof, science
prevails?  I find that highly unlikely.  How do you
propose to explain to the population that regards
religion in such a high esteem that " yes, sad..ain't
it, that your not as smart as me, I know better,", how
is that explaining anything but looking for a
contradiction?

>Agreed. We could arrive at an expression such >as
"gayiage" in the place of marriage. It would make
>sense on grounds of diversity as well-- a diversity
>of terminology.

I don't think it would be my right to name  their
"Union". I'm not in that circumstance.

Ben wrote:
>>>Are you sure you mean what you say here? You
>>>actually feel that somebody's use of a word in a
>>>way that you disagree with, is a violation of your
>>>rights?

Yes I do.  I'm assuming then that you can tell me what
your thoughts are regarding the word "marriage".
Is it just a word without any symbols or associations?
 It doesn't bother you in the least that a "Union" can
represent transgender marriage, gay marriage, lesbian
marriage, heterosexual marriage, whatever goes..as
long as the legal ramifications remain the same?
Throughout history, did the word "marriage" ever refer
to 2 men or 2 women?
If you want to create evolution don't use names that
have been around for 2000 years and try to change, use
the word "Singularity" to create something different.

Spike wrote:
>I know of an example of this, two XYs, both
>anatomically ambiguous, one raised male, the other
>raised female, the state of Oregon asked no
questions.

Your point being?

Samantha wrote:
>Says who?  The Law?  The law is a matter of societal
>convention.  The law once said that no female could
>vote and that slavery was ok.    
>That did not make it right.

Actually, it is my right "now" to say that I can vote.
 
My point was that "procreation", the last I heard is
still a woman's choice.  My definition of procreation
is the choice that I and my partner, (who are both
heterosexual) have chosen to engage in a partnership
based on love, respect, honesty and have chosen to
procreate to keep my meme, belief and memories alive. 
Are you saying that this is not associated with the
word "marriage"?

Samantha wrote:
>Because you have no such right.  You have no right to
>decide the word marriage is only for people like
>yourself and not others.

and what "right" do they have to decide that it has
numerous definitions?

>Why should you have any such right?  What makes you
>think you do?

and what makes it ok to think that "they" do?

Just curious
Anna:)


“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for
tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop
questioning.”
Albert Einstein






  



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com