Marriage is under fire!!

[Rich Grise]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Don wrote:
Virulent anti-gay people are sometimes repressed gays themselves;
therefore, legal gay marriage would threaten their idea of the
family, since they think, unconsciously, that they themselves would
have married someone of their own gender, if it was approved by
society. Amateur fruedian analyis, I know.

Indeed it is, and just as wrong. Anti-gay people hate gays, because they
hate gays. Freud was a twat, and universally acknowledged as a twat by
all mainstream psychologists today.

Whatever you hate in your external reality is simply there to show you
a reflection of what you hate in yourself. You create your own reality,
and no amount of faith can change that one little fact.

For a price, I can teach you how to exploit the mechanism of reality-
creation. Part of the price, of course, is to challenge all of your
own basic assumptions. Getting to the imprints can be interesting,
too.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Don wrote:
Virulent anti-gay people are sometimes repressed gays themselves;
therefore, legal gay marriage would threaten their idea of the
family, since they think, unconsciously, that they themselves would
have married someone of their own gender, if it was approved by
society. Amateur fruedian analyis, I know.

Indeed it is, and just as wrong. Anti-gay people hate gays, because
they hate gays. Freud was a twat, and universally acknowledged as a
twat by all mainstream psychologists today.


Whatever you hate in your external reality is simply there to show you
a reflection of what you hate in yourself.

Pseudo babble. And your *scientific* basis for such a daft claim is?

So, complete and utter nonsense Rich. "Hate", as is any other emotion,
is a gene trait that has evolved to maximise the interests of its
replicator. Its well explained and *proved* from trivial axioms,
experimentally known to hold true.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

You create your own
reality,
and no amount of faith can change that one little fact.

For a price, I can teach you how to exploit the mechanism of reality-
creation. Part of the price, of course, is to challenge all of your
own basic assumptions. Getting to the imprints can be interesting,
too.

Your simply clueless on this matter. Stick to electronics.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:33:40 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
From a legal standpoint, marriage has mostly been about children, and
the obligations their biological parents have towards them. Before DNA
analysis and birth control, marriage was a mechanism for (in theory)
identifying parenthood (through the only available method, female
monogomy) and assigning the obligations that result. A state may not
litigate religion, but it should protect children.

See, that's the problem (as I see it). We have better
mechanisms now, and a pre-nup should define parental
responsibilites in recognition of these mechanisms the same
as it defines financial responsibilities in recognition of
mechanisms advanced beyond pig-counting.

Why is it a problem? Adultery and fornication are no longer crimes,
and "bastard" is no longer a lifelong stigma. If people want to have
babies without getting married, now they can. If they want to be
married, that's still legal too. The law and society have adapted
nicely to antibiotics and birth control [1]. Seems like more freedom
to me.

Fact is, lots of women want some kind of comittment from a guy before
they agree to bear and raise his brats. And a lot of guys still see it
that way, too. "Family" is still a very powerful concept; I suspect
it's wired into our genes.

Most religions treat marriage pretty much along those same lines, just
with a bit of ceremony on top.

Most religions refuse to recognize any technological
advancement beyond weaving, pottery, and primitive
metallurgy, so that makes sense.

Funny, every church I've been in lately has electric lights and PA
systems. Last wedding I want to, a flavor of Hindu mysticism as close
as I could make out [2], they even used wireless microphones.

John


[1] Read the Canterbury Tales or The Decameron. Europe was a pretty
wild and wooly place until syphilus swept through and things tightened
up. The anti-sex bias of organized religion was, in fact, a protective
mechanism against a very nasty disease. Mercury compounds and more
significantly penicillin marked the turning point of most religions
back to a more "traditional" view of sex.

[2] Gangaji Herself was there and blessed the marriage.

http://gangaji.org/

 

[Rich Grise]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Whatever you hate in your external reality is simply there to show you
a reflection of what you hate in yourself.

Pseudo babble. And your *scientific* basis for such a daft claim is?

So, complete and utter nonsense Rich. "Hate", as is any other emotion,
is a gene trait that has evolved to maximise the interests of its
replicator. Its well explained and *proved* from trivial axioms,
experimentally known to hold true.

Ah. Proved. Very scientific. Quant Suff!

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

You create your own
reality,
and no amount of faith can change that one little fact.

For a price, I can teach you how to exploit the mechanism of reality-
creation. Part of the price, of course, is to challenge all of your
own basic assumptions. Getting to the imprints can be interesting,
too.

Your simply clueless on this matter. Stick to electronics.

Quant Suff! Quant Suff!
Rich

 

[Mark Fergerson]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:33:40 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

From a legal standpoint, marriage has mostly been about children, and
the obligations their biological parents have towards them. Before DNA
analysis and birth control, marriage was a mechanism for (in theory)
identifying parenthood (through the only available method, female
monogomy) and assigning the obligations that result. A state may not
litigate religion, but it should protect children.

See, that's the problem (as I see it). We have better
mechanisms now, and a pre-nup should define parental
responsibilites in recognition of these mechanisms the same
as it defines financial responsibilities in recognition of
mechanisms advanced beyond pig-counting.

Why is it a problem? Adultery and fornication are no longer crimes,
and "bastard" is no longer a lifelong stigma. If people want to have
babies without getting married, now they can. If they want to be
married, that's still legal too. The law and society have adapted
nicely to antibiotics and birth control [1]. Seems like more freedom
to me.

Freedom for whom? How about the kid? Who's gonna support
it until it can do so on its own? Law and society are always
behind the curve, otherwise we wouldn't need phrases like
"child support enforcement".

Fact is, lots of women want some kind of comittment from a guy before
they agree to bear and raise his brats. And a lot of guys still see it
that way, too. "Family" is still a very powerful concept; I suspect
it's wired into our genes.

Yup.

Most religions treat marriage pretty much along those same lines, just
with a bit of ceremony on top.

Most religions refuse to recognize any technological
advancement beyond weaving, pottery, and primitive
metallurgy, so that makes sense.

Funny, every church I've been in lately has electric lights and PA
systems. Last wedding I want to, a flavor of Hindu mysticism as close
as I could make out [2], they even used wireless microphones.

But not in their dogma. ;&gt

Read the Canterbury Tales or The Decameron. Europe was a pretty
wild and wooly place until syphilus swept through and things tightened
up. The anti-sex bias of organized religion was, in fact, a protective
mechanism against a very nasty disease. Mercury compounds and more
significantly penicillin marked the turning point of most religions
back to a more "traditional" view of sex.

I have, and I mostly agree. But bastardy wasn't so much
about stigmatization as it was about succession (for
royalty) and property dispersal (for everyone).

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[JeffM]

Virulent anti-gay people are sometimes repressed gays themselves
...Amateur fruedian analyis, I know.
Don

Indeed it is, and just as wrong. Anti-gay people hate gays, because they
hate gays. Freud was a twat, and universally acknowledged as a twat by
all mainstream psychologists today.
Kevin Aylward

Ignores the empirical evidence:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=gay+porn+erections+latent+study+experiment

 

[JeffM]

bastardy wasn't so much
about stigmatization as it was about succession (for royalty)
and property dispersal (for everyone).
Mark L. Fergerson

That makes me think about how most folks think
that celibacy for clerics is in Catholic scripture
when the fact is that it wasn't an issue
until Rome realized that priests were leaving property to their children.
The Vatican wanted all of it.