Same-sex Marriage.

[Raize]

Here's an article regarding the subject matter at hand first of all:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...marriage_N.htm

I believe the price is 39.95 (Not that bad to be fair, but again, weddings cost a ton, you'd look to save anywhere you could, plus it goes with the cultural norm). This price is waived for WOMEN when marrying, but not for MEN.

What would they gain? By my standards, nothing. But by their standards, they would gain a more patriarchal society. When laws are passed, a lot of time and energy does in fact go in to what is said in them. It is by no mere accident that this law exists. True, in a truly capitalist society it would be best if both men and women (and children too, in a truly capitalist society) would all work. We do not live in a truly capitalist society though here in the states; although we worship it enough you would think we did. We have child labor laws, welfare, unemployment, worker's comp., destruction of slavery, civil rights, vacation days, sick days, break rooms, UNIONS... none of these help a capitalist society (at least by the book anyway) they get in the way of profit. I could tell you how each of them does so, but I'm progressively getting more and more off the subject at hand.

The point I'm trying to make though is that we don't solely value capitalism alone. While the debate rages over whether or not the united states was founded on Christianity or not, the truth of the matter is that the majority of Americans (whether practicing or not) still claim a form of Christianity. The traditional conservative view of Christianity (which in my personal experiences is the most popular in this country) says that men are to lead; they are the head of church and home alike. This feeling was at its peak in the 1950s with the ideal of the nuclear family (Husband works and the house is his castle, Wife stays at home raising the kids and obeying the husband, and there is one boy and one girl, and probably a dog <Nuclear family ideal).

It IS the fault of the generation today too though Revo; they practice it still. You can't JUST blame the generations prior, you must also blame the current ones practicing it; we do have a little something called free will, they don't have to follow a cultural norm. Gay people for example don't really HAVE to get married, it's a cultural norm that they wish to practice so that they can acquire equal economic AND social benefits. Peer pressure pushes us, it's arguably the supreme shaping tool of culture, but there are countless examples of people who have not given in to peer pressure (even if that peer pressure meant death!). If we follow the logic of only blaming past generations, what about all of the people in favor of slavery at its end? What about all of the people opposed to women being able to vote the year they were allowed to? What about the era of the Civil Rights movement and the MANY offenses against African Americans? There's plenty of blame to go around, claiming that "we didn't start it" is no excuse, we're keeping it going and that's just as bad if not worse.

I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just pointing it out, sorry if I offended anyone.

[Revo]

Hmm, looking at your previous 2 posts Raize I am very confused as to what it is you are trying to argue. I'll try to bring the source of my confusion forth as best I can.

Here's an article regarding the subject matter at hand first of all:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...marriage_N.htm
I believe the price is 39.95 (Not that bad to be fair, but again, weddings cost a ton, you'd look to save anywhere you could, plus it goes with the cultural norm). This price is waived for WOMEN when marrying, but not for MEN.

What would they gain? By my standards, nothing. But by their standards, they would gain a more patriarchal society. When laws are passed, a lot of time and energy does in fact go in to what is said in them. It is by no mere accident that this law exists. True, in a truly capitalist society it would be best if both men and women (and children too, in a truly capitalist society) would all work. We do not live in a truly capitalist society though here in the states; although we worship it enough you would think we did. We have child labor laws, welfare, unemployment, worker's comp., destruction of slavery, civil rights, vacation days, sick days, break rooms, UNIONS... none of these help a capitalist society (at least by the book anyway) they get in the way of profit. I could tell you how each of them does so, but I'm progressively getting more and more off the subject at hand.

I understood after your first post that in your view the higher-ups are seeking a more patriarchal society with having these laws in place. But my real question was, why would that be a desired goal for them in any case? I understand that USA is not a totally capitalist nation, I was just making that specific point because I thought that would be more along your line of though. Usually in my experience when people talk about the general concept of "higher-ups" in a derogatory manner, it's usually supposed to awaken connotations such as "selfish power-hungry capitalists" (to overemphasize a bit, that is. I don't suspect you being of such a strong opinion. )
If this was not the case, I apologize for misunderstanding you position.
But even in a more socialized community a patriarchal state does not bring any concrete benefits to the system as a whole when compared to to the alternative. If you are arguing that it is not actually a political agenda they are pursuing but a religious one, my response to that follows next.

The point I'm trying to make though is that we don't solely value capitalism alone. While the debate rages over whether or not the united states was founded on Christianity or not, the truth of the matter is that the majority of Americans (whether practicing or not) still claim a form of Christianity. The traditional conservative view of Christianity (which in my personal experiences is the most popular in this country) says that men are to lead; they are the head of church and home alike. This feeling was at its peak in the 1950s with the ideal of the nuclear family (Husband works and the house is his castle, Wife stays at home raising the kids and obeying the husband, and there is one boy and one girl, and probably a dog <Nuclear family ideal).

And the point I'm trying to make that whether or not the majority of Americans are Christians, the truth of the matter is (to follow your phrasing ) that Christianity does not have a say in legal issues due to the constitutional separation of church and state. Even if 99% of Americans were hardcore fundamentalists, it would still be unconstitutional for the church to impose its values of the law system. Any such laws that are in place as relics from an age when people didn't realize this are to be removed.

It IS the fault of the generation today too though Revo; they practice it still. You can't JUST blame the generations prior, you must also blame the current ones practicing it; we do have a little something called free will, they don't have to follow a cultural norm. Gay people for example don't really HAVE to get married, it's a cultural norm that they wish to practice so that they can acquire equal economic AND social benefits. Peer pressure pushes us, it's arguably the supreme shaping tool of culture, but there are countless examples of people who have not given in to peer pressure (even if that peer pressure meant death!). If we follow the logic of only blaming past generations, what about all of the people in favor of slavery at its end? What about all of the people opposed to women being able to vote the year they were allowed to? What about the era of the Civil Rights movement and the MANY offenses against African Americans? There's plenty of blame to go around, claiming that "we didn't start it" is no excuse, we're keeping it going and that's just as bad if not worse.

This is what confuses me the most, so I'm probably misunderstanding something somewhere. To explain my train of thought, from your first post I got the impression that in your opinion
1) The higher-ups are pushing cultural norms and traditions on us to forward their own ideological goals, and
2) We then have to follow these norms (and between the lines I read that the reason for this is peer pressure).

I responded by pointing out that
1) It is not the higher-ups that are pushing these norms on us, and
2) We don't have to follow these norms if we don't want to.

And now you say that
1) We are all to blame for these norms and traditions (which is making me confused in regards to your first post), and
2) We don't have to follow these norms if we don't want to give in to peer pressure. (also making me confused with your first post)

Well I obviously agree with you on the second point, since I already pointed this out in the part where I said that people don't actually have to change their names at all to get married. I'm sorry if that point didn't go across.
On the first point I guess I've got some explaining to do. I wasn't trying to assign blame to the past generations as much as I was trying to reduce blame from the direction I thought you were assigning it to; namely the government. In my honest opinion, there is no point in blaming anybody for our traditions and norms (in my eyes blaming the dead is the same as blaming no-one). They are what they are and they are ours to change if we want to. Peer pressure is a mental thing inside people's heads, it is not a real obstacle (talking about the present, not 200 years ago). You are hardly going to get killed or even scolded today if you decide to take your wives name instead of her taking yours. The only real punishment for your cultural crime is that 40$ fine. That just proves that society isn't perfect yet and there's still work to be done. The only way to change norms is to go against them. And if someone is "revolutionary" enough to make an uncommon decision regarding that their surname that is going to affect the rest their whole life, I think they probably have it in them to be "revolutionary" enough to have a 40$ cheaper wedding reception.
But if it still bothers you, you can be the change. Take the issue up with people who have the power and I'm sure laws like these will eventually change. Just like you said, you can fight against the norm. No one is stopping that. There is no point in assigning blame when the thing is totally fixable.

Btw, I don't at all consider gay people wanting to marry as them wanting to follow the norm. It might be part of the reason, but it's not the reason that matters. Gay people want to get married because it includes concrete legal benefits like you pointed out yourself. I consider the name-changing thing a norm-issue because it doesn't make any difference in the rights and equality of people whether or not they choose to change their names or not. There aren't any concrete legal benefits in changing a name one way or another, it is simply a matter of preference and minor convenience.

So as I said, I'm confused. Do we disagree on something or do we agree on everything? I don't know. You tell me.

I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just pointing it out, sorry if I offended anyone.

I didn't mean you were picking on anyone here, I meant that you were assigning blame towards the government. No worries there .

If you mods think this is going too off-topic, feel free to point it out. Would be sad to cut off the new blood this thread has received, though ..