Same-sex Marriage.

[Raize]

How can one apply ethics to nature? As humans we like to think we have all of the answers, but we don't actually know what it's like to be a lion, or deer, or frog, or tree, or what have you. It's the old saying "Walk a mile in my moccasins". We observe creatures from an outward position looking in. In the field of science we >believe< this gives us a sense of objectivity, but human pride MUST be taken into account whenever we observe. Pride in general MUST be taken into account when we view our own species too even. It's a severe weakness to objectivity. We judge things as 'good' and 'bad' based on our own personal experiences with what or who ever it may be, combined with any secondary information we know about it.

Just because a hippo doesn't get in the water doesn't make the hippo 'bad', it makes it unique. For survival purposes, it may have less of a chance. As humans we have assumed that the goal throughout all of nature and for everything is survival. Our own species however commits suicide. And if nature/life's ultimate goal were survival, wouldn't the natural processes make it so that all creatures live longer and longer throughout time?

[Juniper]

How can one apply ethics to nature? As humans we like to think we have all of the answers, but we don't actually know what it's like to be a lion, or deer, or frog, or tree, or what have you. It's the old saying "Walk a mile in my moccasins". We observe creatures from an outward position looking in. In the field of science we >believe< this gives us a sense of objectivity, but human pride MUST be taken into account whenever we observe. Pride in general MUST be taken into account when we view our own species too even. It's a severe weakness to objectivity. We judge things as 'good' and 'bad' based on our own personal experiences with what or who ever it may be, combined with any secondary information we know about it.

Just because a hippo doesn't get in the water doesn't make the hippo 'bad', it makes it unique. For survival purposes, it may have less of a chance. As humans we have assumed that the goal throughout all of nature and for everything is survival. Our own species however commits suicide. And if nature/life's ultimate goal were survival, wouldn't the natural processes make it so that all creatures live longer and longer throughout time?

I'm finished discussing natural order theory as, again, I do not prescribe to it. My ethical authority is best described as Modified Divine Command Theory, as per Adams, so I don't recognize natural law as its own ethical authority. If you are interested in natural law, you can read more about it in Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Cicero, and Kant.

[Raize]

I'm finished discussing natural order theory as, again, I do not prescribe to it. My ethical authority is best described as Modified Divine Command Theory, as per Adams, so I don't recognize natural law as its own ethical authority. If you are interested in natural law, you can read more about it in Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Cicero, and Kant.

I hope I didn't upset you Pnt, that was most definitely not my intention, nor was it my intention to imply that you did subscribe to such a belief system as you had already stated that you didn't. I was more debating against that philosophy.


Regarding other benefits of marriage... that actually is engrained in American culture (and I would imagine other cultures too?). I'm not sure if this is true for all states, but the state I live in it costs a man money to change his last name, but a woman does so for free. Why is this? Because it's a way to normalize and socialize the people of a population to a way that those in power and control like it; whether that be local or federal. I bring this up because it is an example of "the higher ups" controlling the general populace. A poor couple has to save up for wedding ceremonies (which are a right of passage in our society and the reason why both straight and gay couples don't prefer the court system), they will cut costs wherever they can. If it's already engrained in the cultural mindset that men should lead a household/family and if changing his name costs while hers doesn't - economic logic would state quite simply that she should change hers - perhaps that will save them enough to get another guest to the wedding?

The government like to meddle. Obviously.

I fully support marriage equality, I don't think anyone should ever be forced to marry others (there are growing numbers of clergymen for marriage equality in the world). I would no more want to impose someone to go against their personal moral rights for me than I would want them to go against mine; this leaves me to hope that they share that same ideal. Gaining one type of freedom and equality at the sacrifice of another isn't any good.

[Revo]

Regarding other benefits of marriage... that actually is engrained in American culture (and I would imagine other cultures too?). I'm not sure if this is true for all states, but the state I live in it costs a man money to change his last name, but a woman does so for free. Why is this? Because it's a way to normalize and socialize the people of a population to a way that those in power and control like it; whether that be local or federal. I bring this up because it is an example of "the higher ups" controlling the general populace. A poor couple has to save up for wedding ceremonies (which are a right of passage in our society and the reason why both straight and gay couples don't prefer the court system), they will cut costs wherever they can. If it's already engrained in the cultural mindset that men should lead a household/family and if changing his name costs while hers doesn't - economic logic would state quite simply that she should change hers - perhaps that will save them enough to get another guest to the wedding?

The government like to meddle. Obviously.

Frankly, I don't see what benefit "the higher ups" would gain by such a law. That wedding ceremonies are a "right of passage" and a cultural norm is not their fault. It is a cultural norm because generations before have made it so.
Besides, why would the government or state officials (whichever is the case here) want the man to be the provident head of the family? In a capitalist society it is beneficial if the women are equally contributing and working the same amount as men.
Besides, I don't think this directly relates to the marriage issue at all. You can get married nowadays without having the same surname. If it is a cultural norm to have the same surname, it is - again - not the fault of anyone today but the numerous generations before. There is no real obligation to have the same surname except personal preference and convenience, and I don't think that's a good enough basis to be picking on anybody else.

I haven't heard of this specific law before, but I think it's one of those old laws that are just relics from the time when women didn't even have the right to vote. Like that one law in some state that says that if a woman is driving a car, the husband is to be walking infront of the car waving a flag. There are a lot of stupid state laws like that, and they are obviously not enforced anymore. Do you know if this name changing law is enforced in your state? If it is, I am sure it could be removed by simply taking the issue up with the people that have the power to do it. Because it's clearly unconstitutional.

Out of curiosity, how much money does it cost for a man in your state to change his name? I can imagine that if lineages are somehow recorded in the public record asymmetrically (like following the matriarch line for example) regarding sexes, there might be some technicality that I'm ignorant of that might justify the cost for a man to change his name. But even then I don't imagine it would be very costly.