Sean, from the #Phreadom channel decided to argue his point of view in a comment on my earlier post bitching about Lisa's bitching. ;-) That led into a spillover into IRC... so I'm pasting it here so that you can follow the discussion and see what the guys in my channel regularly put up with from me. Smart guys, but I'm pretty stubborn and bitchy... so they have to work to make their points. :-P
<largo> koden: ah, so that was you. :P
<koden> yes
<largo> I was hoping you wouldn't get pissed that I bashed on you a little. :-/
<largo> I couldn't tell if you were pointing the finger at me or not for being a "sheep".
<largo> and when I wake up, I'm grumpy usually. ;)
<koden> i was
<koden> actually
<koden> i was pointing it everyone that takes part in the gay marriage argument :)
<koden> it's a wedge issue on a non-important topic if you understand the history of marriage as a legal contract
<koden> :)
<koden> i bashed you in my last comment too :)
<largo> one that involves the government.
<largo> are you saying that you get NOTHING beneficial from the government in exchange?
<largo> because as far as I know, that's just a stupid and ignorant thing to say.
<largo> if indeed, you get NOTHING from the government in exchange... no tax breaks, no additional legal rights etc... (which you DO..), then I would completely agree with you.
<largo> however, in light of the facts as I know them, you're wrong.
<largo> now if you would care to prove to me that I'm mistaken, I would LOVE to be enlightened and correct my fallacious impression of the facts.
<largo> because I'm completely open to the possibility that I could be mistaken here. :-)
<koden> largo: what i think is that any aid for the contract relationship with the government is in exchange to having it stipulated by the government
<koden> WHICH IS BAD
<koden> marriage is a legal formality not a "Right"
<koden> i would rather see contractual marriage abolished then the stupid argument over gay marriage
<largo> in that sense, I agree.
<koden> because all the gay marriage argument is, IS just a WEDGE issue
<largo> marriage works as a way to arrange the property rights of cohabitating couples.
<koden> ie. distraction from REAL issues of government
<largo> it clarifies legal issues that arise as a result.
<koden> you can manage property rights outside of marriage with ease
<largo> yeah, with a long court battle.
<koden> no
<largo> instead of "you were married. it's community property. split it in half value wise. everything is 50/50."
<koden> wills, living wills, incorporation, llc, rights of attorney all suffice
<largo> incorporation!?
<largo> *sigh*
<koden> YES
<koden> if you are really hard up on your property arrangement that would be the best option
<koden> but this isnt about that, it is just a talking point issue
<largo> this is just getting ridiculous.
<koden> it is ridiculous from the start
<largo> I don't agree with the church/state hybrid because of the result it's had.
<largo> I DO agree with marriage as an institution.
<koden> it isnt church/state hybrid, it is government control of who can marry who
<largo> it IS a hybrid.
<koden> remeber marriage licenses were created to prohibit inter-racial marriage
<largo> that's silly of you to say that it isn't.
<koden> it is so PEOPLE CAN CONTROL MARRIAGE FROM THE START
<koden> so i say f marriage
<largo> I never disagreed with that part of it.
<koden> i dont need the government to decree such things
<largo> I don't say fuck marriage... I say fuck that kind of control of it.
<koden> then you should see the rest of the issues as mute
<koden> you can have things both ways
<koden> err
<koden> can't
<koden> "i want the government to control marriage, but i want them to control it my way"
<largo> which is why I am pro gay marriage... because it's the common sense solution, rather than the wholesale disollution of a meaningful ceremonial contract between 2 people.
<koden> that is what you are saying and is the same argument that the anti-gay marriage people say
<koden> you just want to control the definition of the control
<koden> which is the same as anti-gay marriage, so you are both wrong
<largo> they want it to remain religious and ceremonial historical american and european defintion, I want it to be the common sense legal reality of what it actually is today.
<largo> which is why I have a problem with the blend of church and state.
<koden> you both think you are "right" but you are both "wrong" because it is the control that is wrong, not the exclusionary system that, IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE FROM THE START
<largo> you're approaching this from an entirely different angle.
<koden> of course i am
<koden> if i didnt i would be playing into the systems perspective
<largo> MARRIAGE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE THE FUCKING 60'S SEAN.
<koden> YES I KNOW THIS
<koden> post civil war
<koden> as a state/governmental institution
<koden> before then it was adhock and up to the indivuduals the state/government was not involved, like it should be
<largo> so yes, bitch about the government control of marriage... sure... while I think it's more complex than you state, I somewhat agree... but in the meantime, as it stands, FIX IT IN THE IMMEDIATE, EASY AND OBVIOUS WAY.
<largo> then worry about addressing the deeper, more complex and more far reaching issues.
<koden> you are saying "i want your control, but on my terms", but welcome to a democracy... unless you are the majority you dont get what you want
<largo> like I said... it actual boils down to a libertarian type argument about personal liberty etc.
<largo> which I also agree with.
<largo> but in light of the fact that you've got a fat chance in HELL of deregulating Marriage... fix the system in the meantime.
<largo> no reason to bleed to death from a cut while you're fighting cancer.
<koden> it isn't a fix
<koden> it is you thinking you are right, and they are wrong
<largo> no, I think in their sense they're right.
<koden> which is always a stupid conflict
<largo> but they're approaching it ALSO from a different viewpoint.
<koden> because it is mute in a democracy
<largo> theirs is from the religious aspect.
<koden> doesnt matter what their view is
<koden> people are allowed to be religious
<largo> which is why the canadian law specifically exempted churches from having to have anything to do with gay marriage.
<largo> because it was the civil aspect of it.
<largo> they wrote the appropriate law to correct the appropriate aspects of marriage as it stands.
<koden> and as long as you want access to a government controlled institution you are going to have the decision made by a majority
<largo> and you're being ridiculous to say that it shouldn't have been fixed while you try to completely abolish any government interference AT ALL with marriage.
<koden> fixed and broken is subjective the majority of the population
<largo> I agree.
<koden> i deny both, since they are both sheep mentality
<koden> fighting for the government to control something the way you want is wrong
<largo> christians are sheep, but I support the freedom to believe and to worship.
<koden> most people are sheep religion or not
<largo> I just don't want it legislated onto me that -I- have to do it.
<koden> ACLU are sheep, any gay right organization are sheep, etc etc
<largo> in a sense, it's the same thing. you're saying that people are free, but only these people can get married, and these can't because we say that our GOD says it's bad, or WE don't agree with it... so we want to make that into a law.
<koden> as long as you accept control through legislation in a democracy you are going to have things you do not like legislated against you
<largo> ok, stop paying taxes then.
<koden> democracy is a two wolves and sheep voting what is for dinner
<largo> jackass.
<largo> quit being so fucking extremist.
<largo> it's happiness in slavery.
<koden> exactlly
<largo> benefits for submitting to control.
<koden> i am a slave, but i see a better world possible
<largo> so do I.
<largo> but that doesn't mean there isn't a good reason to fix the system as it stands while you get there.
<largo> THAT is the flaw in your thinking.
<largo> yes, strive toward that goal...
<largo> but don't just ignore everything along the way.
<koden> not a flaw, i choose not to be part of wedge issues with no good outcome
<largo> gradual illumination of the mind type thing.
<koden> people that jump on this issue without being objective are just playing a role that was drafted for them
<largo> like darwin said... it's like trying to convince a christian they're wrong directly... it's not going to happen...
<largo> but if you upgrade the world around them... they get carried along eventually.
<koden> you think it was a mistake that all of those states had anti-gay marriage resolutions on the same election for president in 04?
<largo> think about it. it's not that I don't agree with you, I just disagree with your approach to it.
<koden> the upgrade is not by changing control, the upgrade is by avoiding it
<largo> I need to go to Scotts for dinner.
<largo> tacos are waiting for me.
<koden> i need to get back to packing
<largo> who knows, maybe I'll turn into a Libertarian, buy a gun and start a Phreadom community in Montana and get us all killed for sticking up for basic freedom and liberty.
<largo> yay.
* largo --dinner &
Thanks for your point of view Sean. :-)
And dinner was great... I'm STUFFED... we had soft taco... things. They were yummy and huge. :-) I started watching "The Sixth Sense" on TV there... but I really need a nap if I'm going to go out with Dan for a bit tonight... I'm exhausted after only around 4 or 5 hours of sleep. I do not function well on sleep deprevation. :-/
That, and watching an alternating 5 minutes of show... 5 minutes of commercials... it was really getting on my nerves.
UPDATE:
hahaha Sean is irritated that I'm posting IRC logs... so I thought I'd share that with you guys as well as the final summary of that conversation that we did for yath before I lay down for a short nap before my outing this evening.
<koden> grrr
<koden> largo posting irc logs
<largo> did you say something incriminating? :)
<koden> no
<largo> or are you being paranoid about your name being on a website?
<yath> heh heh
<koden> for some reason it just bothers me on some weird level :)
<yath> what are you guys going on about anyway? It was very long and I just wanted someone to summarize it for me.
<largo> yath: Sean thinks any government involvement in marriage is evil and therefore arguing about gay marriage rights is not only moot, but it's stupid and evil as well.
<koden> yeah i think it is just a wedge issue because it is irrelevant since it is bad in the first place :)
<largo> I think that while he's partially right, gay marriage rights are common sense and should be implemented now while he goes chasing his windmills.
<koden> i agree with largo on a certain level, if you stipulate to marriage regulation they should just allow it because we all know in another 20 years it will be changed anyways
<yath> k
<largo> considering that most people want to trade government control for security and recognition and any other "benefits" as they perceive them.
<koden> but i stick to my guns that regulation of marriage is bad and dumb, and at this point it has turned into a karl rove wedge issue :)
<largo> basically Sean and I agree on our specific points, but they don't mesh well into one cogent view. :)
<koden> "most people" are sheep :)
<largo> koden: again, I agree. :)
Hopefully he'll see the humor in this. ;-) hahaha
OK, naptime. (Thanks again Sean!)
No comments:
Post a Comment