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

[ben]

Anna wrote:

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?

Well then, i'm sorry, but i'm going to have to violate your rights!

My thoughts regarding the word? - well, of course the word has symbols 
and associations, in my mind, otherwise i wouldn't be able to use it. 
But they are very personal to me, in the sense that these symbols and 
associations are useful only to me, and would likely be incomprehensible 
to anyone else.

Apart from that, yes, it's just a word. What it means is a matter of 
consensus. Language changes all the time, even the French can't change 
that. No one of us has any 'right' to determine what a word should mean 
to other people.

 > 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?

Absolutely. I fail to see why anyone could object to that. Why should it 
bother me, or anyone else?
A 'Union' is the business of the parties involved, and nobody else. If 
they want their association to have a legal status, why should anyone 
try to prevent it? If a commonly understood word is applied to that 
union, then everyone will know what legal status it has.

It grieves me that someone who has been living with a partner for many 
years, in a loving and caring relationship, can be denied things like 
visiting rights in hospital if their partner is ill, just because they 
aren't 'married', because they both happen to be male (or female). This 
concept of marriage makes you belong in a family together. Why on earth 
would anyone want to deny people this if they want it? It's beyond me.

 >Throughout history, did the word "marriage" ever refer
 >to 2 men or 2 women?

Is that relevant?
Look at the word 'gay'. It has changed with time. Things change. Bloody 
good thing too, or Transhumanism would be totally meaningless.

 >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.

Do you think the word 'marriage' has been around that long? and with the 
same meaning all that time?
I don't know if it has or not, but i'd tend to doubt it. Still, it's 
irrelevant, as i said above.

This has got nothing to do with the singularity, it's just about common 
humanity.

ben zaiboc